Okay, I'll try this again.
Particular news sources may be biased. But that is not what I was talking
about. I was talking about the intellectual dishonesty of firstly, as Carl
is doing, claiming that news sources are biased, and then turning around
and claiming that, when they express a view that he agrees with, that they
are merely pretending. How many times do I have to repeat stuff before
people actually read it?
You want to change the subject, that's fine.
I will point out that right wingers claim the media is biased against them
as well as the left. I remember listening to a 60 Minutes article on the
Israeli-Palistinian conflict. It was many years ago, so I do not recall the
details of the article. What I do recall vividly, because it struck me as
odd, was that in their letters section at the end of the program, they read
two letters back to back, one claiming that the article was biased against
Israel, the other letter claiming that the article was biased against the
Palestinians. Now how did CBS manage that feat? It is certainly true that a
particular news source or article can be biased. But it is hard to see how
the same article can be biased both ways.
I've seen other examples of this over the years. Same news piece, different
views. The right claims to have pplenty of "evidence" that the media is
biased against them; the left also claims to have "evidence" that the news
media is biased against them.
My view is that as long as both the left and the right keep complaining
about media bias, then the vast media, as a whole, must be doing something
right. When one side or the other stops complaining about media bias, then
I'll start to worry about it.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 2:36 PM
To: Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
How can a news source not be biased? Do you really believe that news
stories are not written by human beings who have their own opinions and
that those opinions will not seep into what they are writing? Do you
really believe that news sources do not have to consider what their
advertisers might think of a news story? Do you really think that a
profit making news sources will not defend the system that allows it to
make a profit?
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/27/2018 11:07 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
It's one thing to claim that some news source or other is biased. That may not be true, but it is fair enough if one believes it.
It is quite another thing to say that a news media source is biased, and then turn around and say that when they express a view that you agree with that they are merely pretending. That is just intellectually dishonest.
It is also one reason, one of the main reasons in fact, for the nearly unprecedented degree of polarization in this country. That is not a good thing.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Once when Leon Trotsky was working as a journalist and he was accused of
bias he said that if he was a celestial object looking down on human
affairs he could be completely objective and disinterested about them.
However, he was not a celestial object. He was a human being who was
embedded in human affairs and he had certain principles and goals for
himself and his fellow human beings because he was a part of a movement.
Of course he had his biases and of course every other human being has
biases and those biases reflect the position they have in the march of
history. When consuming news the trick is to choose the sources that
have the right biases and to see through the biases of all sources. That
is something I emphasized back when I was selling socialist newspapers
to coal miners. I told them right up front that our newspaper was
biased. It was biased in favor of the miners while the mainstream
newspapers and mainstream news sources they were used to were biased in
favor of the bosses. That was an effective sales pitch. If there was one
thing they could see very clearly it was that the mainstream news media
was biased against them and they were often anxious to try out a news
source that was on their side.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/27/2018 12:30 PM, Evan Reese wrote:
Hmmm, so if the newspapers and radio broadcasts expressed views you didn't
agree with, they were part of the oligarchy, and if they expressed liberal
views, they were only faking it? How does anyone win under your criteria? Do
media sources have to agree with you 100 percent of the time to be
considered legitimate? Or is it only 90 percent? What evidence do you have
that when they expressed liberal views they were only engaging in pretense?
Is it really so far beyond conception that these newspapers and radio
broadcasts might express genuine views that agree with yours?
Sorry Carl, but you appear to want to have it both ways. You condemn this
so-called oligarchy when it goes against your views, then deny the
legitimacy of their views when they do agree with you. Now is that really
fair?
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2018 11:13 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Evan Reese
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Interesting background, Roger.
We share many similar threads in each of our Tapestries of Life, as
well as those unique to those experiences that shaped the individuals
we now are. One thread we do share is our opposition to violence, but
our recognition that it is often the outcome of oppression.
Living most of my adult life as a totally blind man, and the first 29
years as a visually impaired person, I look back and see a pretty
decent demonstration in my own life, of peacefully defending myself
and my family, and picking our way through a countryside fraught with
social landmines.
Fortunately I have never had my back against the wall, forced to
surrender or fight. But my instincts tell me that given such a
decision, I would fight.
My own beginnings were during the Great Depression. FDR had not yet
completed his first term in office. But already he had forced
concessions by the American Oligarchy. My parents, working class
folks, were thrilled by the changes. Social Security was probably the
big one, but the jobs programs were life changing for so many
families.
But life for a small boy was confusing. The daily newspapers and the
radio broadcasts were owned by the long established Oligarchy, but
played games with the American People, often appearing to hold
"Liberal" views. And of course there was the "Good War", surrounded
with so much propaganda, and the attack on Labor Unions and Left Wing
political parties such as the American Communist Party, that a young
boy had a difficult time making sense out of the world.
I did go through a period when I believed that the solution to our
problems would be an all out war on our enemies of that
time...Communism. And I did waste ten years as a Born Again
Christian.
I also spent years working within the Democratic Party, trying to
effect change as it related to the social needs of the working class
and, in particular of blind people.
All of my own experiences have brought me to a place where I see our
nation's democratic Republic form taken over by the Pentagon and its
Corporate Profiteers. I suppose that "Coup" would be the term I'd
choose. On the surface A quiet, mostly peaceful Coup. Well protected
by its Corporate Media. And, in truth, I can't see any way out other
than either giving up and surrendering what freedom we do have, or
erupting in violent revolution.
At 83, I probably will not be around to see how this all plays out...darnit!
Carl Jarvis
On 10-26/18, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is there really any such thing as peaceful revolution though? I am all
for peace and always have been. Let me tell you something about my
history. Most radicals my age say that they were radicalized by the Kent
State massacre. For me, though, it was the police riot in Chicago during
the Democrat convention in 1968. I was fourteen years old and watched
that on television and was appalled at those cops. Before that time I
had already developed some progressive ideas on my own, but as a young
teenager - as opposed to an older teenager - I had other ideas about how
social systems could be improved that now strike me as downright nutty.
But as I watched what was happening in Chicago I completely took the
side of the protestors. So I became more and more interested in the
anti-war movement and secondarily in the civil rights movement. I think
it was the anti-war movement, though, that solidified my radicalism. The
trend in the anti-war movement that most influenced me was the pacifist
trend. It did not take much convincing to convince me that it was insane
to march off to murder and be murdered by people that one had nothing
against and that it was out and out criminal to order and force people
to do that. If I was sent off to war it was clear to me that it would be
by and for people who did not have my interests nor the interests of any
of the people I cared about in mind and the whole idea of that really
angered me. At the same time I was busy sorting out the good guys from
the bad guys and trying to figure out which were the good guys and who
were the bad guys. Certain categories became pretty clear immediately.
Right-wingers were bad guys. Republicrat politicians were bad guys.
Anti-war demonstrators were good guys. Civil rights activists were good
guys. I also happened to notice that the right-wingers engaged in a lot
of name calling and one of the most frequent names that they used to
call the anti-war crowd and the civil rights activists by was communist.
That told me that if those kind of people were against communists then
the communists must be the good guys. So I started looking into what
communism was all about. They always seemed to be on the right side of
the issues that interested me, my side. But one thing that really
intrigued me was that they called themselves scientific. I had always
been and still am a science buff and so that intrigued me enough that I
decided that I had to look into them especially closely. I was
interested in them enough that I sought them out and met some
communists. I was impressed. They were very decent people and, most
importantly, they were on the right side of the right issues. However,
there was something that really bothered me. Communists kill people.
Here I was a pacifist and I was admiring a movement that engaged in war
and killed people. This was a real dilemma for me and I was flailing
around trying to find a way to reconcile it. Finally I read a book that
turned out, in retrospect, to be the one book that probably influenced
me more than any other book in my life. It was Socialism On Trial by
James P. Cannon. I do recommend that book and it is a pretty short one
too, but I do not expect that it will have the same effect on others
that it did on me. It effected me so much because I was right in the
middle of my dilemma when I read it and it did help me make that
reconciliation that I was flailing about for. It happens that in the
early 1940s James Cannon and other leaders of his party were arrested
under the Smith Act and put on trial for sedition. They were convicted
of sedition too and were sent to prison. The book consists of
transcripts from the trial. In order to convict him the prosecutor was
asking questions about revolutionary violence so as to prove that Cannon
advocated the violent overthrow of the government. Cannon explained it
this way. We would really prefer to implement our ideas by the peaceful
means of getting our candidates elected and then by proceeding to change
the laws and amend the constitution and we definitely do not advocate
violence. The trouble with that is that a study of history shows that a
change in economic and social systems never happens that way. In any
class society the people in the lower classes will feel resentment at
being ruled over by the people in the higher classes. They will take
actions to try to make the system more fair and equitable. These actions
may take the form of petitioning the rulers or they may take the form of
demonstrating or forming organizations like unions that will represent
the interests of the lower classes. One thing they do not want, though,
is violence. It is clear that even though they may be in the majority
when violence breaks out that it will mean violence against themselves
as well as against the rulers. It will mean the devastation of farm land
and thereby the capacity to produce food and it will mean the
destruction of many of the means of production which are the livelihood
of the people trying to bring about change. And violence does not break
out immediately either. As the lower classes push for a more fair and
democratic system they sometimes make gains, but the rulers never want
to give up their power and privilege. When the lower classes do make
gains they have to pressure their rulers into making the concessions
that make for the gains. Whenever the pressure eases off the rulers
always take back their concessions and the ruled have to push for the
concessions again. This process is called the class struggle and human
history is pretty much a record of that class struggle. Eventually the
contradictions between the classes sharpen to the point that the ruled
classes start to make great gains and the rulers see that they just
might be in real danger of losing their power and privilege. There are
no examples in history in which the ruling class just gave up their
power and allowed for a democratic society to triumph. Every single time
the rulers are in actual danger of being overthrown by the social forces
in play they hold onto their power by any means necessary and that
includes striking out violently. The oppressed classes have the choice
of lying down and dying and having their survivors oppressed even more
than they already were or to defend themselves. That tends to spiral
into civil war. And every revolutionary war is a war of self defense
because each and every time it is the rulers who start the violence.
Now, pacifist that I was my pacifism did allow for self defense. Just
sitting back and letting yourself be killed to preserve your pacifism
struck me as insane as the act of going off to war to murder people you
have nothing against. So I was able to reconcile my pacifism with the
goals and methods of the communist movement and my dilemma was resolved.
I was able to go on to become a communist activist and the only violence
I ever encountered in my political activism was violence that was
perpetrated against me and my comrades. And I did see some of that. The
worse against myself was being punched in the gut so hard that I had to
gasp for breath for a long time. I don't count all the threats and
having had guns shown to me with the implication that they might be used
against me. The worst I ever saw happen to a comrade, though, was a
comrade who got punched in the head so hard that the group of us who
were attending a striking coal miners rally had to take him to a
hospital and he turned out to have amnesia. He got better, but I heard
years later that he still did not remember the events of that day even
before he got bonked. Still, though, I don't think my pacifism has
changed since I was a young teenager. I am still opposed to war and I am
still opposed to individual violence. But just like I was when I was a
young teenager I still allow for violence in self defense. The
difference in my position from what it was when I was a young teenager
is that I see violence in certain situations as inevitable and that in
addition to self defense I think it is a good idea to take control of
the situation when violence breaks out to bring about the best possible
outcome from a choice of bad outcomes.
_________________________________________________________________
Isaac Asimov
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don't you believe in
telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life
after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved
negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement,
and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no
matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and
more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the
evidence will have to be.”
― Isaac Asimov
On 10/25/2018 10:40 AM, Evan Reese wrote:
Sure, I'd be into peaceful revolution. It would depend on the kind of
revolution of course. In principle though, I'd certainly prefer that
to the kind that often occur. I was thinking of those more destructive
kinds, particularly the kind Roger's ideology generally talks about
when I was addressing Mary.
Evan
-----Original Message----- From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Evan,
What about peaceful change as revolution? That's about the only kind
of revolution I'd support. The problem is, it doesn't seem as if
powerful social forces can be controlled.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:48 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
I would like to add my voice to the welcomes, Mary.
I've seen you on other lists. You seem pretty tech savvy, which is cool.
I am also new here. I joined last week. On social issues I'm
definitely left of center, but on economic issues I'm in the center,
or maybe even a bit to the right. I support the current economic
system. I defend the "capitalist running dogs" around here. (Yes, some
people actually talked like that in the 20th century. Fortunately,
humanity has moved on since then. Mostly that
is.)
Seriously though, I am more than happy to talk about shortcomings of
the current economic model and how to fix them, but I'm not interested
in revolution. I'm with John Lennon:
But when you talk about destruction,
Don'tcha know that you can count me out.
So once again, welcome. I hope you enjoy it here.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:50 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: New member
Hello and welcome, Mary.
If you have a natural curiosity and a sense of adventure, you've come
to the right list. We do try hard to stay on target and not fall into
name calling, as happens on the ACB chat list at times. But a good
sense of humor and a moderately thick skin, and you'll soon be right
at home.
As for me, besides being Carl Jarvis, I am a self proclaimed
Progressive, an Agnostic, and 83 years old. My wife and I provide
services to older blind and low vision folks on the Great Olympic
Peninsula, through our organization named, Peninsula Rehabilitation
Services. We've been at it almost 24 years and have worked with well
over 3,000 clients. I'm totally blind...for the past 55 years. Cathy
and I work as a team since living here in the deep, dark forest does
not allow a blind man the ability to travel to many of our clients alone.
And just for the record, eating, sleeping, working, vacationing and
breathing the same air day after day finds us still deeply in love
with one another.
Carl Jarvis
(PS. Cathy's horse is down this morning. She's called the vet and is
trying to get him up and moving. I was going to buy a new keyboard
today, but it's looking as if I'll have to make do with these sticky
keys for a while longer.)
On 10/23/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Mary,
This list is suddenly becoming busy. We've acquired two new members
and will, I believe, be acquiring another one. It's an ill wind that
blows no good, they say. I do believe we can thank Mr. Trump for the
rejuvenation of this list. At any rate, I'll forward one of the Real
News Network digests to the list. It's a website which has excellent
little news videos that you can listen to and also, there's a text of
each one, I believe. I'll forward one of the digests. You go to the
heading of the story in which you're interested, which is also a link,
and then, you move down until you find a play button and press enter.
If you find the website, you can sign up for your own digests. The
website is in Baltimore. Its founder, Paul Jay, comes from Canada,
and it does national, international, and local Baltimore news.
Some of my favorite people are on there: max Blumenthal, Ben Norton,
Dean Baker, etc.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Mary Otten
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:44 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] New member
Hi folks,
I just joined this list, of whose existence I had no idea until a
friend forwarded me a book recommendation from one of the BARD lists,
where this list was mentioned. I recognize Miriam's name from the
bookshare list of many years ago. We liked lots of the same books on
political/historical topics. Anyway, I joined out of curiosity to see
what the list was like.
I've seen a couple posts, one of which mentioned the real news
network, with which I am not familiar. what is it?
Mary
