Journal pudge's Journal: Larsen and Koster on KCTS 9 9
Last night KCTS 9 had nice profiles on both John Koster (R) and Rick Larsen (D-inc.), the candidates for Washington's Second Congressional District (whom we collectively interviewed recently here on Sound Politics). The KCTS piece uncritically showed Larsen's dishonest ad falsely accusing Koster of wanting to privatize social security, and referred to an "anti-incumbent" wave that is generally understood to be anti-establishment, not anti-incumbent, but otherwise it was a pretty good piece.
The discussion afterward, however, was fairly awful. All of the pundits -- including former state GOP chair Chris Vance -- said the only thing Koster has going for him is the "wave" in favor of Republican candidates. Joni Balter said Koster is "rigid" and "inflexible," while Larsen has "been there" for his constituents (as if Koster hasn't been). Perhaps she missed the memo that most voters in the Second CD want government to "be there" for us by being a lot less "flexible" on government spending.
Next Thursday, October 21, at 7 p.m., KCTS 9 will host a debate between Larsen and Koster. Tune in!
Also check out this non-endorsement endorsement of Koster by the Seattle Times. They call Larsen out for his dishonesty, his lack of fiscal responsibility, and his desire to increase taxes. They praise Koster for his fiscal prudence, his experience, his responsible record, and says he would benefit Congress. But they say they don't endorse him because he agrees too much with his own constituents: he is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and is (as every scientist and responsible politician is required by the rules of logic to be) skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.*
The Seattle Times says they endorse Larsen, but at the same time, they demonstrate that Koster would better represent his constituents. Draw your own conclusions.
* If you're a liberal, you're supposed to be skeptical of religion, skeptical of politicians, skeptical of authority and media of every kind, but not skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Even the IPCC leaves open the door that AGW may not be true; how could any lay person think there's no room for that? To decry skepticism in the face of uncertainty is to be anti-intellectual, and it is incumbent upon every policymaker and scientist to remain open-minded on all such issues.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
global warming IS their religion (Score:1)
If you're a liberal, you're supposed to be skeptical of religion, skeptical of politicians, skeptical of authority and media of every kind, but not skeptical of anthropogenic global warming
Did you happen to observe the "conversation" [slashdot.org] I had with pixelpusher on the subject? His idea of a dialog was putting words in my mouth and lying about what I had previously said. They just can't accept the fact that some people dispute the idea of global warming. Heck, I didn't even do that. All I did was argue against the idea of imposing an artificial increase in energy costs (i.e: carbon tax). Apparently that makes me a "denier" and gives him license to lie about what I said.
moof (Score:1)
* If you're a liberal, you're supposed to be skeptical of religion, skeptical of politicians, skeptical of authority and media of every kind, but not skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.
If it's capital ell, they're only supposed to be skeptical of that which their people didn't invent or haven't already sufficiently compromised.
But I thought being liberal about things was more about tolerance than skepticism. "b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas [thefreedictionary.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If it's capital ell
A capital letter would refer to an official name, and it's not, in this country. So I am honestly not quite sure what you mean.
But I thought being liberal about things was more about tolerance than skepticism
If you mean by that the modern "liberals/progressives," yes, this is what they say, but it's far from true. Someone who vandalizes my car because it is not "green" enough is not tolerant. Someone who calls people "idiots" because they are skeptical of an unproven scientific theory is not tolerant. None of the prime time hosts on MSNBC are tolerant. Hell, Bill O'Reilly has more
Re: (Score:1)
A capital letter would refer to an official name, and it's not, in this country. So I am honestly not quite sure what you mean.
From the same cited source [thefreedictionary.com] of definitions as before:
Like "Democratic" is very different from "democratic", those people characteristic of the left wing of the Dem party are far from
Re: (Score:2)
A capital letter would refer to an official name, and it's not, in this country. So I am honestly not quite sure what you mean.
From the same cited source [thefreedictionary.com] of definitions as before:
Unless you're referring to the Liberal Party, it still makes no sense to me, from this definition. Note that NY has a Liberal Party.
Like "Democratic" is very different from "democratic", those people characteristic of the left wing of the Dem party are far from "liberal", so I designate them with a capital ell, for differentiation purposes, similar to how you sometimes hear someone say something like "I prefer democratic (with a lower case dee) rule".
But Democratic is a Party. Liberal (except for a few cases), in this country, is not.
Shrug.
Re: (Score:1)
But Democratic is a Party.
You're getting hung up on the wrong aspect. Like if someone says two things are apples and oranges to mean they are very different, and you say but that makes no sense because they're both round. It's not the roundness they're talking about.
And the "characteristic of" clause as one of the OR'ed choices in the definition should've been enough to prevent your confusion that I'm necessarily referring to some literal "Liberal Party".
I guess I'll journal about and spell out my weird con
Re: (Score:2)
You're getting hung up on the wrong aspect.
No, I am not, in fact. I simply pointed out that linguistically, it makes no sense to capitalize it. If you want to defend it, you're the one getting hung up on it.
Like if someone says two things are apples and oranges to mean they are very different, and you say but that makes no sense because they're both round.
No. It's like if you incorrectly capitalize something and I point out that it makes no sense to capitalize it because it's wrong, and you say "you're getting hung up on the wrong aspect." :-)
And the "characteristic of" clause as one of the OR'ed choices in the definition should've been enough to prevent your confusion that I'm necessarily referring to some literal "Liberal Party".
Well, no, because that's the only way it wouldn't be incorrect.
Re: (Score:1)
Parse error: Internal overflow, line 6: Too many negations in a single sentence, unable to process.
Re: (Score:2)
Upgrade your parser. ;-)