I keep hearing folks say that the press has liberal bias, and I look and look, and don't see it. If the press is so biased towards the liberals, why, exactly, did we suffer through Monica Lewinsky coverage for years? If the press is so biased towards the liberals, why is everything Gore says up for ridicule and confirmation, when what G.W. says is basically ignored? Here are four articles that attempt to describe the phenomenon.

I don't, necessarily, think order is important, but if you do, read the first one first.

The death of liberal bias in the press.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 13, 2000

Answers

I don't know when I've seen a more revealing statement of current press corps culture. According to Carlson, the press has pursued Gore's trivial misstatements because it is "greatly entertaining." And why has the press ignored Bush's big-time errors? Because Bush's errors aren't as easy to disprove! According to Carlson, the press corps' agenda has been set by what is easy, entertaining, and fun.

So what else is new? Still, I'll make you a wager (Brian can hold the money) that the NYT and the Washington Post will endorse Gore. And that's ok but they both claim to be independant. I'd be happy to lose this bet.

To me, a more significant trend than "press" tilt is the decreasing influence of the traditional media (newspapers and network TV). It remains to be seen if that is a good trend, but I do think it is happening.

BTW, is Margaret Carlson no longer with Time mag? See, I am an example of those who no longer pay much attention to the Establishment media.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 13, 2000.

I see the media's post mortems of the debates as influencing voters' attitudes far less than the debates themselves would, and the debates carrying less influence than what people have read and viewed throughout their lives.

If a liberal leaning editor shares this belief, he or she may view a focus on Gore's flaws, real or imaginary, as generating interest in the race without undermining liberal causes.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 13, 2000.

"Still, I'll make you a wager (Brian can hold the money) that the NYT and the Washington Post will endorse Gore. And that's ok but they both claim to be independant."

Lars, every paper "endorses" some candidate or another, regardless of whether or not they claim to be independent. Would you have the same complaint if they come out endorsing Bush? Would that also belie their claim of being independent?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 13, 2000.

Myth: the U.S. has a liberal media http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalm edia.htm+liberal+media&hl=en&client=googlet
(http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jonvwill/resurgent/L-liberalmedia.htm)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), October 13, 2000.

Patricia,

That's my point. I don't think the Times or the Post will endorse Bush or any moderate Conservative over a moderate Liberal. (I am cutting Gore some slack here). I don't say they would not endorse a Republican or an Independant over a Democrat. Had John Anderson run for President in 1980 they might have supported him over Carter.

Maybe you want to take my wager? Ten bucks says that NYT and Post endorse Gore.

Have a great get-together in LV.

What is the betting line on the election? Is there a web site for the LV odds?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 13, 2000.

That's a sucker's bet, Lars ;-)

I'm sure there are odds here somewhere, but I haven't seen them (of course, I hadn't looked for them, but now I will be). I doubt I'm going to find them at the race and sports book at some of the casinos [g].

BTW, really wish you could be here :-( I'll be sure to toast one to you, if you don't mind.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 13, 2000.

Patricia, I'd be honored. Toast away.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 13, 2000.

) 2000

Big Three Ignore Proof Clinton Lied on China Spying

Sex Lies Draw More News Than Policy Lies

When he was forced to respond to press conference inquiries about newspaper scoops on Chinese espionage, Bill Clinton denied any knowledge that espionage occurred on his watch. On March 19, Clinton insisted: "Can I tell you there has been no espionage at the labs since Ive been President? I can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing has occurred." He repeated later in the same event: "To the best of my knowledge, no one has said anything to me about any espionage which occurred by the Chinese against the labs, during my presidency."

On April 8, Clinton met the press with Chinese premier Zhu Rongji and denied knowledge again: "You know, China is a big country with a big government and I can only say that America is a big country with a big government and occasionally things happen in this government that I dont know about. And so I think its important that we continue the investigation and do our best to find out what happened and I asked for his cooperation." That night, ABC and NBC ran clips of Clintons March 19 denial. But with the routine exception of FNC, the network evening and morning shows often failed to follow up when evidence emerged proving his denials were hollow:

April 28: The New York Times reported: "A scientist suspected of spying for China improperly transferred huge amounts of secret data from a computer system at a government laboratory, compromising virtually every nuclear weapon in the United States arsenal, government and lab officials say. The data  millions of lines of computer code that approximate how this countrys atomic warheads work  were downloaded from a computer system at the Los Alamos, N.M., weapons lab that is open only to those with top-level security clearances, according to the officials. The scientist, Wen Ho Lee, then transferred the files to a widely accessible computer network at the lab, where they were stored under other file names, the officials said. The Taiwan-born scientist transferred most of the secret data in 1994 and 1995, officials said."

Coverage of this evidence of espionage during Clintons first term? ABCs World News Tonight aired a full story, the CBS Evening News mentioned it before its own exclusive report on nuclear lab security and CNNs The World Today aired two reports. NBC aired nothing. None pointed out how the disclosure countered Clintons claim.

April 30: The Washington Post front page reported that Congress "erupted" with criticism against the FBI and the Justice Department. "After grilling FBI Director Louis J. Freeh for nearly three hours in a closed-door hearing, members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence from both parties appeared equally outraged at what they depicted as lax handling of past and present investigations into suspected leaks of classified data." Coverage? Only CNN aired a story.

May 2: The New York Times added new details about when the Clinton team learned about espionage: "A secret report to top Clinton administration officials last November warned that China posed an acute intelligence threat to the governments nuclear weapons laboratories and that computer systems at the labs were being constantly penetrated by outsiders.Yet investigators waited until March to search the computer of a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory who had been under investigation for nearly three years, suspected of spying for China. And it was not until April that the Energy Department shut down its classified computer systems to impose tighter security over their data....The classified report contains numerous warnings and specific examples showing that outsiders had gained access to the computer systems at [U.S.] weapons labs as recently as June 1998."

Network coverage? Only ABC reported it, for 40 seconds, but did not note it contradicted Clintons claims of ignorance.

May 5: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee heard from nuclear lab directors and probed delays in warrants for Wen Ho Lee. The next days New York Times story began: "Scientists at the governments weapons laboratories can still download nuclear secrets onto computer disks and walk out without being checked, the directors of three of the labs told Congress on Wednesday." Network coverage? CBS and NBC aired nothing. ABCs World News Tonight provided a full story on the China hearing, but Bob Woodruff honed in on FBI bungling on the Lee case and bought the Justice Departments claim that it twice turned down warrant requests simply "because the evidence against Lee was insufficient."

May 7: Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz summarized a bipartisan congressional finding of damage that was released later that day: "U.S. satellite technology transferred to China in 1995 and 1996 has improved Beijings rockets and missiles, according to a report to be released May 7 by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The bipartisan committee report sets out that the Chinese government is engaged in a covert operation aimed at influencing U.S. policies." Network coverage? Only CNN.

May 9: On NBCs Meet the Press, host Tim Russert forced Energy Secretary Bill Richardson to admit that espionage had occurred "during past administrations and present administrations." Russert exclaimed: "Finally, someone has acknowledged it." Network coverage? Zero, even though the admission made the front page of The Washington Times and The Boston Globe.

May 10: New York Times reporters Jeff Gerth and James Risen expanded on espionage: "A scientist working on a classified Pentagon project in 1997 provided China with secrets about advanced radar technology being developed to track submarines, according to court records and government documents. Submarine detection technology is jealously guarded by the Pentagon because the Navys ability to conceal submarines is a crucial military advantage."

The reporters added context: "The information about the radar technology, which is considered promising and has been in development for two decades, was divulged to Chinese nuclear-weapons experts during a two-hour lecture in Beijing in May 1997 by Peter Lee, an American scientist, court records show....The Peter Lee case is also significant because it clearly demonstrates that the American government believed that China was successfully engaged in espionage  obtaining American defense secrets  during President Clintons second term." Network coverage? Zero. CNN did a story on espionage, but not this story.

The Media is a pimp for the democrats and I can prove it

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 13, 2000.

"The media is a pimp for the democrats..."

Could it be that the media in general is more intelligent and have more sense in choosing a better party than the republicans and fence sitters?

-- Don't hurt me (just@sking.a.question), October 13, 2000.

Don't hurt me...

Yea, thank god the smart people are watching out for all us idiots...geez

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), October 13, 2000.

Fox News is the only news show on TV that represents both sides. Meet the press has only one journalist with a right point of view, the remaining three are liberals.

What about the other questions asked during the debate? Like, VP Gore, do you believe that your opponent is incompetent (leading the first debate)? Or the question on Profiling? I find that to be a very liberal question. My response back to that would have been well, of course I don't know how I would feel since I'm not the object of such discrimination. But looking from my point of view, would the citizens endure racial profiling over higher crime rates.

O'Reilly interviewed Susan Sarandon on this topic. She came back with each question to the point of civil rights and left in a huff. The liberal media (all other journalists) would have made it a fluff interview. Not going to the other side of the topic. Boring!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 13, 2000.

Lars, the reason the the NYT and Washington Post will most likely endorse Gore is simple: they represent the Rockefeller-Javits-moderate-old money wing of the Republican party. Bush's tax plan and his anti-abortion position are not in line with that wing of the Republicans. Gore's positions are calculated to appeal to them.

Most of Clinton's policies were very soothing to them as well, because Clinton fell in line with NAFTA, WTA, capital gains tax cuts, and a whole host of things on their wish list. Gore is not frightening to them. Gore is equally in line with the big corporation agenda.

If that makes Gore a liberal, then the meaning of liberal has changed yet again. Believe me, if Bush wins, both papers will fall in line behind the vast majority of his policies. They just prefer Gore. He is safe on the issues like prayer in schools and abortion, while being pliable on all the big money issues.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 14, 2000.

I keep hearing folks say that the press has liberal bias, and I look and look, and don't see it.

Anita, this was pretty funny. There was a poll conducted of journalists a few years ago, and if my poor memory serves me well, over 80% considered themselves "liberal." Compare that with about 13% or so of the public that consider themselves thusly. I believe any serious researchers of the media would also be amused at your statement, although I would expect that they would say that clearly, the tide is changing. Perhaps the reason you can't see the liberal bias is because you ARE a liberal, so liberals look "fair" to you.

You do bring up some interesting comments. The press does like a good news story, and will often go after any target, regardless of political stance. Take Gore for example. Many journalist, even liberal journalist, flat out don't like him. Why? I submit that the longer they cover him, the more they see what a programmed, prototypical politician he is. Robot man, Mr. Soundbite. Views change with the political winds. Bush is also the prototypical politician, but he's predictable, and doesn't change from conservative to liberal based on the audience to the same degree that Gore does. And most of all, I think the press has heard way to many of Gore's personal stories exagerated to the nth degree - (Gore: "There's a small dairy farmer from east Topeka, Al Farthington, he's sitting in the audience tonight...")

All in all, there is a liberal bias in the major newspapers, on the TV Network news, but I believe thats changing. Why? Glad you asked. Choices. More of them. The Internet, a BIG influence, with news sites that are fairer, or biased to the beliefs of the viewers. Conservative sites, liberal sites, and everything in betweeen. Cable TV. More channels, more news, more choices. Foxnews, the best thing to happen since the old CNN (before Turner sold its integrity out with the merger). Even the old broadcast stallwart, ABC, is a little more fair these days. To keep viewers, they've all had to add conservative "personalitites" on some of their shows.

I still like the Internet. Drudge, slammed by many here, has had a bigger influence than you would ever give him credit for....but now, he's immitated, the news outlets know that they can't just "sit" on a story they don't like, someone else will go with it if they don't! For those who love to say "I don't consider Drudge a serious journalist", how often to you visit the site of this "unserious journalist"? lol. Even the DNC, the RNC, and James Carville check out Drudge every day. But not good enough for you "scholars", eh? ROFLMAO thinking about Z....Gotta love it.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 14, 2000.

Brian--

Nice try but it doesn't wash. Scroll to the end of this link and see the post-WWII presidential endorsement history of the most influential newspapers. The Times has not endorsed a Republican since 1956.

I truly don't care who they endorse. What bugs me is their pretense at being independent.

BTW, I have no idea who Ashley K. Vroman is.

PRE SIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENT RECORDS

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 14, 2000.

FF--

You nailed it. The traditional news sources no longer have a monopoly.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 14, 2000.

Thought these links might be interesting: Step right up, see for yourselves ladies and gentlemen, caught on video, as heard about on FoxNews,"T he Decade's Most Outrageous Liberal Media Bias" Liberal media bias now dead? I don't think so, Toto... Media Research Center CyberAlert

Accuracy In Media

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 14, 2000.

The problem with these terms Liberal and Conservative is that they don't appear to be different zones on the same spectrum at all. From my perspective, neither group particularly wants to reduce the scope of government. Liberals want to use government to promote "politically correct" causes like gun control, green initiatives, ethnic awareness and whatnot. Conservatives want to use government to promote a narrow religious agenda, to deprive us of our right to abortion, to teach creationism in science classes, and to put more teeth into more blue laws.

As I see it, the media tend to support Liberal causes except when those causes actually affect the reporters personally, when they see a bit of the light. I think I'd be a full-bore conservative myself, if it weren't for the religious zealots working to pollute notions of individual freedom and responsibility with pro-Bible and antiabortion planks. Bad as socialism is (and it's VERY bad), I consider it still preferable to institutionalized religious intolerance.

I really don't consider religious "conservatives" to be politically conservative at all. They are instead political activists with a demented agenda.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 2000.

>> Nice try but it doesn't wash. Scroll to the end of this link and see the post-WWII presidential endorsement history of the most influential newspapers. The Times has not endorsed a Republican since 1956. <<

So? Since 1956, the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party has not been able to win a Presidential nomination. The lineup goes Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, and now Bush II - the Sequel. Gerald Ford may have been the only one even close to that wing of the party, but he was Nixon's handpicked successor and the Times did not love Nixon.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 15, 2000.

In re Drudge:

>> ...how often to you visit the site of this "unserious journalist"? <<

Me? I think twice in the past two years. Both times it was links from TB2K. Neither time did I read the whole story. I think I've spent about a total of three minutes at his site.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 15, 2000.

Brian--

I agree. The Rockefeller country club Republicans are nearly gone. There are descendants of them in East Coast Republican circles--Whitman, Weld, Bush-the elder (the son of Sen Prescott Bush of CT), etc, but they have morphed to accomodate the new realities of the Republican party. So, if the Rockefeller-Javits wing is irrelevant, then why did you didactically explain to me that the NYT doesn't support Republicans because there are no Rockefeller-Javits Republicans.

Lars, the reason the the NYT and Washington Post will most likely endorse Gore is simple: they represent the Rockefeller-Javits-moderate-old money wing of the Republican party. Bush's tax plan and his anti-abortion position are not in line with that wing of the Republicans. Gore's positions are calculated to appeal to them.

IMO, the NYT no longer represents the old-money wing of the Republican Party. (The wing that has not fielded a Presidential candidate since Dewey). IMO, the Times supports mainsteam Establishment Liberalism which means it would support a Dem over a Green but also means it would support a Green over a Conservative.

Flint--

It really is possible to be a Conservative without being in thrall to religious zeolots. Hope you will hang in.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 15, 2000.

>> IMO, the NYT no longer represents the old-money wing of the Republican Party. (The wing that has not fielded a Presidential candidate since Dewey). <<

I'd say Eisenhower, but...

My point is that the NYT has stayed true to its political philosophy for a very long time. They are reflexively patrician, not liberal. What has moved is the relative positions of the two major parties, not the NYT. The mainstream of the Republican party flowed away from the NYT and toward Goldwater/Reagan. The mainstream of the Democrats has flowed away from FDR New Dealism and toward patrician values and corporatism. Hence, the NYT endorsing Dems.

>> IMO, the Times supports mainsteam Establishment Liberalism which means it would support a Dem over a Green <<

This is proved. Nader ran in 1996. No endorsement from the NYT.

>> but also means it would support a Green over a Conservative. <<

This is pure, airy speculation that says more about you than it does about the NYT, IMHO.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 15, 2000.

"pure, airy speculation"--yes, I said "IMO" for Chrissake. Maybe I should say IMPAS--I'll do that if you will. But it doesn't matter since the Times will never have to choose between a Republican and a Green.

Yes, the Times is patrician and so are contemporary Liberals. If you weren't so close to it, you would see how patrician the Greens are.

-- Lars (lara@indy.net), October 15, 2000.

Wow Flint, don't hold back on the venom there, lol.

Basically, I don't find your comments anything more than an opinion, and am inclined to leave your diatribe alone, save for these "points" you make:

i>...to deprive us of our right to abortion This was never a God given right, nor a constitutional one - it was one given by liberal Supreme court judges. As a man, what "right" do you have in this? The "right" to fix a wrong by killing the innocent unborn? Hey, why not make it a "right" to kill up until age 6 months post birth...can you please explain the difference, in moral terms? As I have stated before, abortion is a horrible thing, for the woman involved, for the unborn child. Until our society stops accepting, in our hearts, that killing the unborn is ok to prevent unwanted births, we will remain a troubled nation that does not respect life itself, both the born and the unborn.

I really don't consider religious "conservatives" to be politically conservative at all. They are instead political activists with a demented agenda.

Basically your rant is against the stereotypical liberal and conservative, where people rarely agree on all issues. Thats ok, but I disagree with your "demented" agenda comment for conservatism in general. If you are talking abortion here, I offer that you, Flint, may be the demented one. I am quite comfortable standing with the innocent. You may stand with your kind.

-- FactFinder (David@bzn.com), October 15, 2000.

Factfinder:

The rigid intolerance you demonstrate is Exhibit A for my fear of so- called "conservatives". MY idea of conservativism is that you can go to Hell in your own handbasket, and I can go in mine, should we so choose. YOUR idea of "conservatism" is to force me to accept your arbitrary religious precepts, because they are "absolutely right."

I can only shudder.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 2000.

Flint--

I think you are way overreacting to FF. Afterall, he did say I am quite comfortable standing with the innocent. You may stand with your kind.

Why do you shudder at that?

I think the linking of conservatism to radical Christianity is a red herring. It is not philosophically inconsistent to be an agnostic Conservative. For that matter, it is not inconsistent to be a Christian leftist. (Remember the 60's? Remember Civil rights, anti-war Christians, so-called Liberation Theology?).

There is plenty of room for Conservatives that arrive from different directions. Let's not get bogged down in nit-picking schisms.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 16, 2000.

Lars: I agree with what you said, but I find myself shuddering when David posts also.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 16, 2000.

I shudder with Flint. I declare it my alienable right as a human being to choose what will hapen to my own body, and not some God from any particular religion, or self-righteous FactFinders who proclaim to know better than MOI what is good for humanity or my body.

So here you have it,

-- The Word According to (smarty@wannabe.one), October 16, 2000.

Flint: The rigid intolerance you demonstrate

Cutaway now to Flints earlier post:

I think I'd be a full-bore conservative myself, if it weren't for the religious zealots working to pollute notions of individual freedom and responsibility with pro-Bible and antiabortion planks. Bad as socialism is (and it's VERY bad), I consider it still preferable to institutionalized religious intolerance. >/i>

Flint, as Lars correctly points out, first of all, you confuse conservatism with religion. There are libertarians, there are fiscal liberals and social conservatives, and scores of various religious beliefs, but you mix them into stereotypical "conservatives" and proceed to bash your stereotype soundly. Hmmm, wheres YOUR tolerance? I submit that its where it has always been...firmly with those who at any given moment agree with your opinion. Flint: I really don't consider religious "conservatives" to be politically conservative at all. They are instead political activists with a demented agenda.

Sure, you are Mr. Sanity, those who would disagree with you are "demented". As I pointed out, consideration should be given as to whether it could be you that fits your "label." I personally don't think so. I personally think you are quite sane, but severely morally challenged.

Your stereotypes don't work with me, your exaggerations are shallow. For example, I personally advocate that people search their hearts as to what's more important, life, unborn or otherwise, or our own selfishness. I haven't been advocated forcing anything but an examination of the truth. About abortion, Mr. Flint, one thing is surely true - no one ever stood up for the "right" of abortion that himself/herself was aborted. No, you are here and able to defend this "right."

Anita, Lars: I agree with what you said, but I find myself shuddering when David posts also.

I take that as a good sign Anita, since it indicates that we continue to disagree on the moral issues. I myself would shudder if I ever found myself agreeing with your posts. So here you are in harmony with Flint, two NOT aborted lifeforms, defending ....humanity? I think not.

-- FacdtFinder (David@bzn.com), October 16, 2000.

FF:

In my experience, > /i > doesn't work that well. :^) Good to see you back.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 16, 2000.

Flint: See Factfinder as an example of someone preaching gospel rather than addressing the proper role of government in society, someone who *cannot imagine* that his moral brainwashing doesn't represent Objective Truth!

Interesting. Government must leave moral issues out of society I suppose? Basically Flint, your brand of "tolerance" appears to mean anything BUT morality or religion. Your "inclusiveness" includes anything BUT morality or religion.

Abortion as a "right"? Otay, agenda accepted, put it into law! Think its an injustice, the killing of innocent life, harmful to the father, the mother, and the unborn? "Demented" fools, pushing their agenda!

Athisem, secular hmanism? Otay! Religion? "Demented" fools, pushing their agenda!

Basically, Flint, you are unable to accept no other "agenda" than that written in "The Book of Flint." A religion unto yourself, tin foil headress and all. I will not be attending the Church of Flint, for I see it as a false religion...;)

-- FactFinder (David@bzn.com), October 16, 2000.

FF said to Anita: "So here you are in harmony with Flint, two NOT aborted lifeforms, defending ....humanity? I think not."

If you, Anita me and Flint were aborted, we'd not be here arguing and the world would turn happily without us, wouldn't it? But since I was born without anyone asking me what I thought about it, and I'm supposed to defend what's good for humanity, I'll keep reminding the likes of you that those of us who came on earth before the unborn already have established productive lives and we take precedence. Simple matter of priority. You want morality? Consider the mother of a child or two, who finds herself pregnant again against her wishes and medically this pregnancy threatens HER life. Should she risks her life for that of the unborn, and deprive her born children of their mother on top of living her own life, of which many more people depend on? I could go on and on about over-population, rapes, unfit mothers, but you've heard it all already.

Morally on this topic you are as unbalanced as any tinfoil extremist who still post on EZB, and it is ironic to watch you talk down to Flint.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 16, 2000.

rofl, Z. I think I pound out more mangled html per post than any other poster here, I must confess. Unless I use the editor and check it, which I only do for a long post. But hey, I saw you get hammered pretty good by one poster for chiding them about "learning html" enough to post web addresses as hot links. I thought they taught you a lesson about being the html police, but I guess not ;) In any case, guilty as charged. Will enroll in html remedial course...

-- FactFinder (David@bzn.com), October 16, 2000.

FF:

Yea, I've done the same. Sometimes, I just make mistakes. Sometimes it is this laptop in an airport late at night [the keys are too crowded]. Sometimes the site ignores proper commands [one time; be back in 99 or 98] I had to insert 5 copies of the correction to get it right; and there was no error to begin with. Now hmmm is the real html clean-up man. He has served yeomans duty here in the last 9 months.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 16, 2000.

All in all, a very lively thread. Thanks Flint and Anita, you never let me down. You are indeed very good debators, though a bit vulnerable to the first flame...;)

-- FactFinder (David@bzn.com), October 17, 2000.

Factfinder:

Surely you can do better than that. You should learn the First Rule of Holes -- when you're in one, stop digging!

Usually you can see the difference between being allowed to make a decision for yourself, and having someone else's decision *forced* upon you. You are generally intelligent enough to see the qualitative distinction between something on the one hand being either mandatory or prohibited, and on the other hand being something you are permitted to decide for yourself.

But when the behavior under discussion falls within your religious brainwashing, your mind snaps shut with impressive impact. It becomes plain impossible for you to grasp that I'm not suggesting that you be *forced* to do anything one way or another. I'm suggesting that most decisions should be YOUR decisions, not mine nor anyone else's. I'm not trying to impose my will on you in any way. If the law were to make abortion mandatory, I'd opposite it just as strongly as I oppose a legal prohibition. I believe the State has no business meddling with matters of personal morality one way or another.

The "Church of Flint" is to mind my own business and let you mind yours. And THIS is what you want no part of. Instead, you want to impose your morality on me because you have Absolute Truth on your side. And if I don't wish to force you to do anything at all, nor be forced in return, somehow you see me as being intolerant!

Please notice that I am taking a *political* position here. I'm saying it should be *MY* responsibility to act morally, NOT the government's job to FORCE me to act morally. To the greatest extent possible, the government should be indifferent to the private morals of its citizens. Otherwise, we move toward theocracy.

Is it any wonder I fear religious indoctrination? LOOK what it has done to you, if you are still capable of it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 17, 2000.

David:

The difference between our views on abortion revolve around when life begins [which they usually do.] *I* see life beginning at first breath upon birth. YOU see it beginning earlier than that. Religion doesn't have to be associated with politics, but I know that for you they are intertwined. This makes it very difficult for me to discuss politics with you without stepping on the toes of your religion, and I don't want to mess with your belief system.

Society has come to a consensus that life begins after first breath. This is why we have laws regarding killing people, etc. This isn't to say that others don't believe that life begins BEFORE first breath, just that there's TOTAL agreement that [for instance] babies shouldn't be killed. There is NO agreement that life begins before first breath, so suggesting that pro-choice people may as well advocate killing babies is an emotional straw-man, much like coining the term "partial-birth abortions." What the hell is partial-birth? You're either born or you're not.

There are many types of liberals and conservatives. There are fiscal conservatives, constitutional conservatives, etc. In many ways, I agree with the thinking in those areas. I shudder when I see or hear folks toss aside the first amendment because the material went against THEIR morality. I shudder when I see or hear folks proclaim that the Boy Scouts are justified in excluding gays, yet feel that the same group should continue to receive perks provided by the government. I shudder when I see YOUR belief system used to define MY morality. It's not your religion [or that of any other person] that causes the shuddering. It's the zealotry. It's the blindness to any other belief system but your own that scares me, combined with your insistence that others are incorrect if they don't agree with you. It's Y2k all over again.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 17, 2000.