The Fallacy of Equal Time
75
The History of Equal Time and the Fairness Doctrine
The Equal Time Rule is a federal communications regulation that requires broadcast licensees (radio and television stations) who give free air time to political candidates to provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing candidate who requests it. The Equal Time Rule is codified as Section 315(a) in The Communications Act of 1934.
When most people talk about Equal Time, what they are really talking about is the Fairness Doctrine. Introduced by the FCC in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.
So, for example, if a TV station examined a liberal viewpoint on a controversial issue, The Fairness Doctrine required that that same station should also present the conservative viewpoint on that issue, as well as any divergent views that fit neither category.
At the time the Fairness Doctrine was written, the dominant view within journalism was that a good journalist always presented news as objectively as possible, keeping personal opinion out of it. Personal opinion was to be confined to the editorial page and nowhere else. The journalistic standard of the time was strict objectivity and newspeople took that standard seriously.
In 1969, in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the FCC to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, but in reality the FCC soon discovered that it had little means to do so--especially during turbulent, contentious times--and even less stomach for it.
In 1987 the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine.
Since then, repeated unsuccessful attempts have been made in Congress to reinstate The Fairness Doctrine, although it is clear that broadcast journalism has already fully embraced an approach that assumes and validates personal bias on the part of the newscaster.
Few broadcast journalists today pretend objectivity is even possible, and many openly state their personal perspective and then report events from that perspective without apology.
How Fairness Ideas Have Mutated Since 1987
Today, many Americans hold a sort of vague, uncritical conviction that every U.S. citizen has the right to speak his or her mind, and that all opinions, no matter how strange or extreme, must be treated with equal respect within any personal conversation or debate.
If you probe a little bit and try to get at what these Americans think fairness really means regarding speech and written opinion, you discover that most believe that fairness is a kind of a mishmash of the Equal Time Rule, The Fairness Doctrine, and the First Amendment.
The First Amendment (in its entirety) states that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, to sum this all up:
- 'Freedom of speech' is a First Amendment right that guarantees Americans a free press and the right to peaceably assemble and ask the government for a redress of grievances, (that is, sue the government, petition your Congressperson, etc).
- The Equal Time Rule very narrowly concerns itself with political campaigns and a specific federal requirement that free air time can't be given out to one candidate and denied another who requests it, no matter how minor or small the political party of the dissenting candidate might be.
- The Fairness Doctrine was an FCC guideline formulated in 1949 that required newspersons to present controversial topics in a fair and balanced manner, but was finally abandoned in 1987 as unenforceable when American journalistic standards moved away from objectivism and towards personal perspective and punditry.
Note that nowhere in this jumble of legal sentiments and rules is any notion or recommendation that individual persons must treat the ideas and spoken opinions of other individual persons with any kind of equanimity or even respect. Nothing in our Constitution or its Amendments, nor in any of the laws and regulations that issue from the Constitution or its Amendments compels us as individuals to listen to or respect the ideas of others.
Let me take this a step farther:
Nowhere in any of these rules is the sentiment ever put forth that all ideas are created equal and therefore all ideas must be given equal consideration and an equal hearing by individuals who don't find value in them.
Yet many Americans do think this is part of what it means to be fair in these United States.
In fact, many Americans use this faulty fairness reasoning as a sort of default frame for any political discussion between persons, despite the fact that no such guiding principle exists anywhere (nor, I would argue, should it).
We each have the right to peaceable free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Related to that right in an indirect way, it is also true that broadcast journalism is subject to some basic but very narrow rules and guidelines surrounding issues of fairness and equal time.
But individual persons have total freedom to ignore the opinions of others or dismiss them as complete rubbish without discussion or examination.
My personal view is that, while all people are created equal, all ideas are not created equal, and simple expedience requires each of us to winnow out the most ridiculous of ideas and give them no consideration at all. This isn't just an option, it's a virtual responsibility.
What's more, if we care about critical thought or excellence at all, we must learn to dismiss bad ideas as quickly and as accurately as possible so as to focus more productively and more intently on ideas that do have merit.
To do anything else would be a waste of our time and our critical faculties.
A Ridiculous Personal Example
Imagine that I am grocery shopping for just a few items, and while I'm browsing the produce section a man comes up to me and says that the round orange fruit I am gently squeezing in my hand is not a fruit at all, it is an antelope.
I look up and realize that he is someone from Hub Pages, who knows I'm a big 'ole fruit lover; who has read my fruit salad recipes and thoughts on dessert, and now, by God, he's got a chance to set me straight.
At this point, I have some choices.
One choice, (which, being a fairly easy-going sort of person I briefly take) is to respond. I say that no, what I'm holding in my hand is an orange, and what's more I've never even seen an antelope in Michigan, but if I had seen one I wouldn't hold it in my hand and squeeze it, so while his views on the subject are all very interesting and I see he does hold them passionately, I have a lot to do and I wish him a good day.
But he will have none of that.
He demands to know my sources regarding the history of oranges and their regulation and distribution vis a vis antelope parts, and he informs me that he himself is a member of the Society of Antelope Protectors (S.O.A.P), and before I can say another word he throws a can of orangeade all over me and shouts, "It is time to water the tree of Liberty!"
OK, now I've wasted ten minutes, I don't have my groceries, my white t-shirt is ruined, and I have a raving asshole in front of me who is screaming about life on the prairie.
So let's imagine that instead, I make a different choice. I don't respond to the content of his ideas at all, because I consider them to be quite insane and I don't see the point in a confrontation. He may want one, but I don't. So I just say, "So nice to see you. Good luck with your antelopes and thank your reading my essays!"
He feels patronized and rebuffed (because I am patronizing and rebuffing him) and follows me through the whole store haranguing my orangish ways in every single aisle while I try to finish my shopping. Eventually I do check out, pay for my items, get in my car, and get away to my home, where it is usually fairly quiet and free of nonsense.
You see what I'm getting at here, don't you?
This imaginary man has a perfect right to believe that oranges are antelopes. In America, he also has a right under the First Amendment of the Constitution to stand up in a public forum and say he believes oranges are antelopes. He has a right to pen book after book on the orange-antelope question and live his entire life trying to convince the world of these ideas.
But he has no right at all to my time if I don't care to give it to him.
I have a right to reject his ideas without explanation.
Following me around and insisting that I give his thoughts a fair hearing isn't fairness and it isn't free speech.
It's harassment.
How False Notions of Fairness Distort Discourse
When American journalism moved away from objective standards and toward perspectival interpretations of news events, I think that public discourse in this country gradually became unhinged from reality.
Standards of objectivity and questions of perspective and truth are very complex. It's like that old saw about the people in a dark room with an elephant and one thinks the elephant is like a snake, and another thinks its like a huge wall, and another like a tree trunk because all these people are touching a different part of the elephant.
In some sense there's no such thing as objective 'truth' and at the same time no single perspective is all that accurate either. It can help to have lots of different reports and interpretations of those reports. In an ideal universe, eventually something fairly accurate would eventually congeal from that mess. Some kind of rough consensus would emerge.
But certain distortions also come from applying false notions of fairness to ideas, especially in an age in which information is instantaneous, incredibly narrow, perspectival, and often just wrong. A lack of civility or common standard of respect doesn't help matters.
Here are some common distortions I've noticed:
- The false polarity distortion. This is where an issue is framed as a choice between two very extreme foregone conclusions, neither of which fits the listener's personal experience or views in any genuine way. Going back to my ridiculous personal example, this would be something like, "You either love antelope and are willing to say so or you're an orange loving baby killer who eats puppies! Choose now!" Right. I mean, I can't relate to either of those choices on a personal level at all. For one thing, those aren't nearly enough choices for my taste. But then again, why must I choose between those two poles at all? Who says so? On what authority? What if I just don't really care and by the way, why are you drooling on shoes? Step back please.
- The All-Ideas-Are-Equal distortion. This is the one that says that the idea that oranges are antelopes is just as valid as the idea that oranges are oranges, and since at least three people hold this idea as sacred, we need to teach the oranges are antelopes theory in public schools in order to be fair and balanced and report it on the news constantly, like, all the time. But in reality there's nothing fair or balanced about that. Doing that accords the 'oranges are antelopes' theory WAY more importance and weight than it ever had or ever should have, and opens the door to teaching theories about how oranges don't exist, oranges are Leprechauns, and so forth.
- The You-Have-Listen-To-Me distortion. No, I don't. You have a right to your thoughts and opinions, and I have a right to disregard them. You have the right to stand on a soapbox, but I am not obligated in any way to listen to you. If you listen to me, I am also not obligated to submit to an interrogation afterward. There are reasons I might want to, but I don't have to. A conversation, even a debate, requires consent from both parties. If I don't want to enter into a conversation with another person I get to decline. If someone really wants to talk to me and expects me to talk with them and listen to them, they have to treat me in a way that would lead me to think that's a good idea. Even then, I can say no thanks.
- The Disagreement-Is-Evidence-of-insanity distortion. I'm unhappy with my antelope loving friend because of the supermarket incident and my wrecked tee shirt, but it didn't have to be this way you know. We could have just agreed to disagree and gone about our business in a friendly but detached way. Someday much later in both of our lives maybe we'd realize the other one had a point after all, or maybe not. In the meantime, we could just give the benefit of the doubt to each other and go about our lives like civilized people. I see less and less of this lately. It makes me sad.
- The Manners Are For Wimps distortion. Punditry and the internet has exalted trollish behavior and glorified it. People now seem to regard discussions of any kind as a verbal version of World Federation Wrestling, only not that nice. Acting like an asshole is not the same thing as wit, but if you've come to value acting like an asshole as art, you'll never know that. That's the irony. Not that assholes understand irony either.
Well, that's all I have to say for now, because this essay is already way longer than it should be (whatever that means) and anyway, I'm tired. I have to go cook supper.
I'll end with this:
America was founded by a group of religious fanatics who wanted the space to believe whatever they wanted without being harassed for believing it, even if it was truly 'out there.' So we set that up. And now, weirdly, we've come full circle to the point where some very vocal people seem to think freedom means the right to harass, intimidate, and bully others. I just wanted to say, that's not technically correct.
Not like calling these folks on their error will stop that harassment, but I just wanted to say it.
Thanks for listening.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Thanks jeromoeo! I appreciate you taking the time to comment. :)
Great discussion on the fallacy of equal time.
Pgrundy, excellent hub as usual but I was astounded that you went ahead and mixed apples with oranges and started equating the fairness doctrine in terms of radio time as your main point with the controversy of teaching evolution and Creationism in schools. These two have similar problems perhaps, but the difference is that a large portion of American society feels that it is wrong not to teach Creationism, and that it is wrong to teach evolution. It would not just be fair, but correct to respect the religions of all majority groups.
The fairness doctrine applies to the presentation of personal opinions and you and I don't pay for that or are forced to listen to them. I agree some ideas are ludicrous, but we should not judge on the basis of our own preset thinking and bias, but rather whether or not it is fair. In the end though, the issue is made moot by the fact that the fairness doctrine has nothing to do with fairness. Talk shows are not pure journalism, they are opinions. Should journalism be upheld to to the standards of unbiased objectivity? No, the government should have very little to do with that, however, the distinction should be made between real journalism and opinionated reporting. I love your point about being able to disagree and go our own way. Keep the battle in the courts and the appropriate venues, but we can still be civil with each other. But everybody is polarized these days.
Hi Alexander, Thanks for making those excellent points. I was coming at this not from any single issue (like teaching Creationism, although clearly that was my allusion in the oranges example), and I don't want to get off on a tangent about Creationism and whether it belongs in public schools (I think it does not). I used it as an example because it is not an idea that has equal weight in a science class--it's not equal AS science, and presenting it as such seems to me a distortion. I can respect another person's religion, but that doesn't mean I have to teach their religion as science in a public school. That's not fair, and it does distort what science is and how important Creationism is (within science, not very).
I actually think something was lost when the FCC ditched the Fairness doctrine. I don't like the way cable news is presented, and the internet makes it all worse in a lot of ways. People have trouble sorting out the actual facts and they don't understand that screaming opinions isn't real discussion.
And she cooks supper, too! Ain't it a shame the girl is taken already? Just kidding there, Grundy :-) This is great, and I so agree with you on all the points you make, I think you didn't miss a single distortion there!
I wasn't familiar with this Fairness Doctrine, much less with the fact that it was abolished in 87', but I just wonder if something like that would be possible today? Objectivity is SO passe in today's news world that most "journalists" wouldn't know objectivity if it hit them in the head with a blunt object. I quote "journalists" there because many of the folks you see or read in the news today are not unlike preachers on pulpits, fire and brimstone included.
Great read, I wanna be like you when I grow up. Pity I grew up already, UH?
Thank you for posting this. I've been slammed with those in some situations where by all rights I should have been able to just walk away -- except that my survival was at stake in the homeless shelter. Jack it up one notch with "They have a right to vent their feelings" and you wind up with a special meeting in which I had to sit there enduring two solid hours of verbal abuse from eight bigots who were horrified at everything about me from my religion to my haircut and felt a burning need to tell me so and treat my personal life as a democracy they belonged to.
Or the time that I made a written complaint of abuse by a staff member only to find out that the director insisted I sit through a repetition of her harassment in front of him because "Doesn't she have a right to express her feelings?" No. Not when they cause me symptoms and my written complaint said that we had some irreconcilable personality differences that made it impossible for her to work with me because of her views on life.
Fifteen solid minutes of it and when that question got asked, I just said "No. I'm getting symptoms right now and her feelings are not my problem." At least then the director gave up and made her leave.
In bad situations every one of these arguments can be pressed to the point where it escalates beyond harassment into potential violence.
That kind of logic has been cited by people who argued to my face that disabled people who don't have family to take care of them ought to be euthanized. I'm supposed to sit there reasonably considering the argument that I ought to die to save them some tax money, or forced sterilization, or other such arguments, as if I were a journalist trying to cover the issue in 1949 -- and take it seriously? Or the argument that people should be killed for not belonging to their religion, something I'm wholeheartedly against no matter what religion it is threatening violence?
Thank you for a good sensible hub.
Individuals are not governments. Individuals are not responsible to the public or to entertain bad ideas. Sometimes people can wind up in a bad situation where someone with this attitude can force harassment and get away with it by blackmailing on survival issues. That doesn't make it right, it's just that abuse can happen when people have that kind of power over others.
Excellent hub PG. The mind is indeed a dangerous thing best not to listen to it ! Who gets to decide who is talking sense ? What a can of worms you have opened up. I would say you can't convince a fanatic of anything, as they merely twist evidence to fit in with their particular prejudice. The only hope is to get them to see the inherent contradictions in their own beliefs but that takes way too much time and effort.
Pg, great piece and one that needed to be written. I agree with you about the "right to peaceably assemble" and "America being founded by a group of religious fanatics." Guess what, they are still here trying to force their beliefs on everyone else---They are no better than the terrorist we fight…Live and let live---life will work it all out!
Actually, I didn't realize that the Fairness Doctrine had been abolished in 1987. I only knew that news coverage started to turn weird around the start of the 90s and declined worse and worse, descending into rants and suspicious gaps, things not appearing in the news that I'd find in BBC World News and so on.
Now it makes sense. That's when they were able to use slant. For all that conservatives complain about a "liberal press" the reverse seems to have happened.
Elena--Aw shucks, you sure know how to turn a girl's head! lol! Seriously, it's true, objectivity HAS become passe, and I know all the reasons why, and yet something has been lost. It's like current events has become one long episode of The Jerry Springer Show. It's so ugly here in the U.S. lately. What's that talk show phrase? I love America... I just don't LIKE her very much today. :)
Robert--I know what you are saying. SO many people have lost all understanding of appropriate boundaries and seem to think that everything they are thinking needs to be said, and not just said, but said personally to people they barely know. It makes getting through a normal day an emotional obstacle course, and there's no reason for it. It's some form of viral emotional incontinence.
Singular Investor--Got plenty of canned worms at my house! lol! Come on down! (Thanks for your comments.)
Nancy--You said a mouthful with, "Live and let live." Whatever happened to that? Thank you for chiming in. :)
pgrundy, thanks for your grounded response to my comment. I respect your opinion and respectfully disagree. I want to expand on something Singular Investor mentioned. We can disagree on the various applications of the fairness doctrine and whether or not Creationism in schools is a form of insanity, but the question is WHO gets to decide? I certainly don't want you to decide for me if my belief is beyond credibility, and you do not want me to judge whether or not evolution, (or whatever you hold dear), is insanity. I don't think we can ever have a consensus on who would be able to decide that, because we both have good arguments in our own eyes - and I recognize that evolutionists have decent reasoning in their own point of view. This is why we need equality for both of us - for you the freedom to send your kids to what schools you want or dictate that they get equal representation, and for me to have the freedom to continue the American tradition of teaching the Bible right along with math and English. Squashing the opinions of others is not right. Giving our opinions and choosing to hear or not hear those opinions is our right. As many liberals are fond of telling me, if you don't like it, just don't watch! The same goes for radio. Naturally, when it comes to education of our children, the rights of Christians, Atheists, Muslims and whatever next belief system crops up, must be protected. (First they came for the Jew, and I said nothing because I was not a Jew).
Hi Alexander--I do disagree. Education IS sticky, because it can be abused, and is, all the time. On the other hand, Creationism is grounded in religion not science. I read the first part of the first Amendment, the part that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as meaning the government has no right to push religion on me, teach it in a public school, require it for any reason. The second part that reads "or prohibit the free exercise thereof" is the part that protects you, and your right to believe in Creationism and teach it at Sunday school or hear about it in worship services. Not only are you free to do that, that freedom is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But, and here's the thing that Creationists deliberately ignore--so is my right not to believe in it or spend an overly great amount of time listening to it or defending my right to say no thank you.
Christians are free to believe in intelligent design, but it's religion, not science. No one is coming after Christians who believe in intelligent design; in fact, they are coming after people like ME, who want Church and State to remain separate in the way the First Amendment specifies. You ask who gets to choose, and I think those are valid questions when it comes to education, but I also think it's clear that one choice has been made for all of us by the founding fathers, and that is that we don't teach religion in a publicly funded organization like a public school. People who feel strongly that religion should be taught as if it were science are free to start their own privately funded schools and they do it all the time. No one stands in their way. But the people who wrote the Constitution were fleeing a theocracy, not trying to start their own. They were very, very clear about that.
But the main reason I used Creationism in the schools as an example is that my essay is about how, when you hold up a marginal idea next to a mainstream idea as if they are equal, that very act distorts the value of both ideas. Creationism may be a fine religious idea, but it's a marginal science idea by any standard. Most scientists don't even regard it as science at all. Religious beliefs are protected under the First Amendment when be taught in a Church or private school, but that protection doesn't extend to people who believe in it forcing it on me and my kids too. Science is not a religion, it's a method of inquiry. So it really is just like my example of saying "This orange is an antelope" because it says "This religion is a science." That's why I included it and I still think it is a good example of that.
But you are right, we will have to respectfully disagree and leave it at that. Anyone else who wants to continue that line of the conversation in comments is welcome to do that, but this is the last I have to say on it personally. I feel that the rights of religious people end where my rights begin. In other words, I would defend the right of Creationists to believe what they do, but their rights to believe stop where my right not to believe begins. That's what separation of church and state is about.
I do always appreciate your willingness to talk with me in a civil manner Alexander and share your side of things. Thank you and have a good weekend.
@pgrundy : Science is not based on whether or not an idea is mainstream or marginal.
Marginal science IS taught in public schools with an explanation of why it is marginal. Religion is not taught in public schools as science because 1) it's not science, and 2) it violates the First Amendment.
My point however, is that when you hold a marginal idea beside a mainstream one in the press or in a conversation or a debate it conveys incorrectly that the two ideas are equal when they are not.
But you already know that.
I'm glad there are people like you on the net.
Excellent analysis of the Fairness Doctrine and objective journalism, pgrundy. The best newspapers have always made every effort to separate news from opinion, but some very successful newspapers made no bones about taking sides on the news pages. But these papers were quickly tagged for what they were. The television networks had excellent news divisions for decades, but lost their way more recently after they were taken over by the corporate giants. New stations, like Fox "News," threw objectivity to the dogs.
With the advent of the Internet, objective news is hard to come by. If one doesn't start out with objective facts, it's difficult, if not impossible, to find them by studying right wing and/or left wing opinions. I've written my opinions on this subject on a hub title, "Objectivity Is Possible -- And Vital."
Well,well,well..... You're on a tear now! Lets see you want the right to listen or not, but if you present a flawed position you want a pass. I can assume since thats what you believe it would also be the same for national issues. So you can present an issue and even if it offends the majority you don't want to be called on it. That would mean you feel its ok to be wrong on an issue and no one should say anything because it might hurt your feelings.
Now I don't mean to hurt your feelings but I think the seperation of church and state was meant to keep government from imposing a national religion. Our fore-fathers were religious men and on nearly every document they wrote is a reference to God. I would say its fair to assume they didn't intend on God being kicked out of our national interests.
Now lets look at our schools. I've never heard of a Christian school having a gang of children, from homes where they are taught the lessons in the Bible, robbing, assaulting, raping and vandalizing. That sounds like some of our public schools where its more important to be politically correct than morally correct. The liberal position that no prayer can be said at sporting events, graduations and other functions actually persecutes the majority to protect the feelings of the minority.
Now lets look at the abortion issue. Its not ok to execute a convicted murderer who is guilty beyond any doubt and has spent years exhausting the appeals process but its ok for a woman to kill a baby because its not convient. That way she won't have to be bothered with the guilt of commiting adultery or her own lack of responsibility for a child she concieved. It would be better for her if she could just kill it and put the problem out of her mind.
All you have to do is look what years of liberal policies have done to our sociaty. Rather than frown on premarital sex, because we don't want any one to feel bad, we remove morals and create cycle of poverty. This poverty is due unwed mothers with no life skills teaching their children the same thing they learned, nothing. Hey atleast their feelings are intact.
You propose a new European America where liberalism is what we need in the name of feelings. If you make a mistake in todays world it could be the last mistake you ever make.
As usual you're wrong but, don't let me hurt your feelings, you can say your right if you want to. Your Hub is well written and very easy to read, good work.
amillar--Thanks, that was a nice thing to say. :)
William Torpey--When Walter Cronkite died recently, I realized how much things had changed on TV news. I think it's possible to get good information but it gets harder and harder. Thanks for your thoughts.
sneakorocksolid--So nice to see you. Good luck with your antelopes and thank you for reading my essays!
Thats a very thought provoking hub which gets your points across so well
Thanks ethel!
Hey PG, You need to get with Thursty because he talks to the animals to! He says gay behavior in animals justifies gay human behavior and you say the antelope can teach the conservatives lessons. I think, in only the polites way, that you both have alot in common with Dr. Dolittle. Fantsay is good, if its your happy place I'm all for it. PG try and address the issues before you go back to happyland. Other wise you'll only look silly. Peace.
Some posting actually need to figure out a way to spell 'fantasy,' 'a lot,' 'too,' etc. Technical communication affects the actual message as well. I hear there are a lot of nice antelopes in Alaska. :)
Yes, yes, yes. A voice of intelligence and common sense...and the person, after all, who first drew me to Hubpages. And excuse me for appreciating those qualities, as I have felt so often recently around here that I offend people if I do. Sigh.
My thoughts echo yours on almost all of this. I feel we are at an odd point in history, again, with the explosion of information evident with the creation of the internet. I see it...and its ability to reach and democratize voices across time & space...as large a changing factor as the printing press in the 1500's. It's going to take a while before people collectively work all the issues surrounding that out.
What it comes down to--and because I do believe in a certain set of universals--is the importance of critical thinking and analysis. That, and yes, just decency and good manners. Things most reasonable people can agree on...no matter what their political views, ;).
As far as bias and spin and 'equal time' in the news media.... I am very interested to know about the dismissal of some of those laws. What I do know is that it wasn't the intent of interpretive journalism and creative nonfiction to deceive, but rather to approach something closer to the truth. These ideas came out of the 50's-6o's and 70's with Hunter S. Thompson, New Journalism, and the left. The 80's saw the rise of Karl Rove, Limbaugh, et al, who took perhaps those innocent ideas and twisted them... I'm hypothesizing as I go, lol... But you are absolutely correct, and on to much here. Although the experience of others is always "through a glass darkly," and maybe BECAUSE of this, similar to what you said about ignoring the orange/antelope guy, plus the fact that we all breathe, we must work from a common set of some universals, even while maintaining an appreciation of diversity of thought.
Anyway, so much translation and interpretation to be done! ...and I am so thankful for those who do not take short cuts!
Hi Lita! Your point about creative nonfiction is a good one and it made me think how strange it is that the news is becoming more and more fictitious while fiction (and creative nonfiction) more closely approaches 'the truth'.
Curiouser and curiouser!
I think that lot of people are disturbed and angry but before the internet we didn't see that so much about them. We saw THEM but not their disturbed and angry thoughts. Now, it's like everyone is walking around in their underwear or something---TMI--and people are starting to behave in their waking lives like they do on the net. It gets invasive and weird.
In Victorian times, not that long ago really, people had calling cards and when they came to visit there was not requirement that you reciprocate unless you'd personally invited them. Sometimes they'd just leave the card and leave. Boundaries are important and they seem to be collapsing in so many ways, yet rather than creating more transparency it creates more distortion.
Write that hub Lita! I would love to read what you think. Thank you for your generous comments. :)
Dear Lita, Thanks for the criticism. As for "common set of universals, intelligence and common sense, decency and good manners," let us know when you figure that out. The tendency for liberals to 'take their ball and go home' is exactly why you're not taken seriously, except by each other. If you had any courage at all, you'd defend your position rather than cry foul
We are in an era of news broadcast with a "twist" to the left. Four out of five emphsize the liberal perspective which does deserve review. Fox and the radio broadcasts tend to be more conservative and thats what gets under your skin. Hey, lets face it Air America ain't mak'in it. This is mostly due to the fact that you really don't have anything to say.
What your little ploy boils down to is censorship. If you don't want to hear opposing opinions why don't you just move to a place together and you can talk, sing and cry together, rather than screw things up. Save you're social experiments for your happy place. You're only well-spoken if you have something to say.
So you two have the right to be liberal and the right to be wrong.Peace
I'm still waiting Ladies and I'm still disturbed and angry in my underwear. I did jump the fence but damn-it I left my calling cards at home. I would have put them in my underwear but that would have been tacky. If you can't take the heat for a bad position why not just censor your Hubs, Hope does it. Then the only opinion you have to hear is your own.
So nice to see you. Good luck with your fairness doctrine and thank me for reading your essays!
@ sneakorocksolid: How are your antelopes?
I'm not talking to anyone here they aren't sensitive to my feelings as an individual all they do is pick on me! Sniff,sniff.
I just found your recent comment, sneakorocksolid, so let me set you straight. I welcome disagreement from right wing wackos, and I am not offended by it. You simply have it all wrong. My feelings are not hurt. Separation of church and state not only deals with "establishment of religion" but also "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." God is not being "kicked out" of our national interests, only out of our government. I attended Catholic school for eight years, and I can tell you Catholic children are no better than any other children. You can pray all you want in church. No woman chooses to abort a fetus "because it's not convenient," and no one favors abortion unless it's absolutely necessary. It's not liberal policies that have roiled our society; it is unregulated capitalism and right wing fanaticism. By the way, a single-payer health care system would help solve a lot of our country's problems. Sorry PG for taking up so much space here.
That's no problem William. Take up as much space as you want. :)
People are getting to aggressive in the comments sections. I may seem too mean to them, but I am taking off my comment capsules on the more controversial topics. This is not even a controversial topic, so people need to calm down a bit. I actually enjoyed your hub, so I would say some just need to calm down and go watch cartoons, or stop watching Fox and read the real news.
Hi Sweetie Pie,
I feel the same way about it. It's gotten so ugly around here the past month or so. I'm really tired of it. Thanks for taking the time to read my hub and good luck! Hopefully it will all calm down once this health care thing is over.
Dear Sweet confused William, You haven't heard your atheist friends then because they don't want God on any thing. If you take a close look at their position you'll see it's a typical liberal whine,"It's not inclusive." It makes the left have to look at the Bible or hear praise to God. There are plenty of God-less communists/socialists who don't want to have to deal with their own concious.
The only time abortion should be considered and option is for: rape, incest or the life of the mother when is approved by an appropriate medical authority.
Pratial birth or late term abortion never, period. As a method of birth control or oops I changed my mind never, period.
Healthcare reform for Americans who work and contribute to our sociaty,ok. Never for illegal aliens or those who just want to work the system. We can't pay for everyone in the Western hemisphere to have health care on us. We can't afford to pay for ourselves much less the rest of the Americas. Our government has no money! They use our money!
Now if your willing to reel in forgien aid, counter unfair tariffs and just handle American issues I think we can do it. But thats not what the left wants they want 'The United States of Europe.' The left wants to be in everybodies wallet and buisness.
As far as rights for gays above and beyond everyone elses is ridiculous. Gays have the same rights any American has! I can't marry a man either it's the same for everybody but, thats not inclusive enough. I will bet the farm that as soon as they get the right they'll call their buddies over at the ACLU and law suits against churches for discrimnation will begin to flow. Liberals know there is never an end to their quest to ruin an independant America.
You want to be so much like Europe because they are so enlightened. Well I ski and when I'm in Europe I see lots, if not the majority, of women wearing real fur coats too. Try that here and watch the lunatics come out of the woodwork.
My point is to summarize, your crap smells just as bad as ours! So get over your bad self!
jeromoeo says:
3 months ago
Here , here. I heard you load and clear, thanks for speaking up.