Full Version: The Far Left
QUOTE
NIMBY stands for Not-In-My-Back-Yard, a typical suburban opposition to new development or change to the surroundings. In suburban DC, the local PBS affiliate is engaging in a bit of NIMBYism related to immigration rights, something it would normally support (to the extent that taxpayer-funded public television engages in advocacy - wink, wink).
PBS programs such as Washington Week, Frontline and the NewsHour are quick to take the Bush Administration to task on issues such as granting more rights to undocumented aliens and more stringent post-9/11 standards on Middle Eastern travelers, but God forbid people gather next door to the PBS studios in the hope of finding a job!
This is posted on the DCRTV web site, a gossip site dedicated to the local
DC media:
"WETA Frowns On Plan For Day Laborer Facility (7/31)" - The Northern Virginia Journal reports that WETA is not too happy about Arlington County's plan to build a $100,000-plus pavilion for day laborers adjacent to the public TV/FMer's Shirlington office and studio complex. Recently testifying before the county board, WETA CEO Sharon Percy Rockefeller (Democratic Senator Rockefeller's wife) predicted a "pretty hostile environment" for Channel 26 and FM 90.9 employees who could be accosted by day laborers (mainly immigrant Hispanic men waiting for work) while walking from one building to another. According to the Journal, Rockefeller added that putting the facility near WETA's south Arlington complex would also inconvenience high-profile guests who arrive to be interviewed on the "NewsHour," which is produced by WETA for PBS..."
WETA has a long-running "Hometown Heroes" segment that it runs throughout its broadcast day. Here are a few past heroes it might want to consult to increase "sensitivity":
Sonia Gutierrez (11/02): provides adult education to immigrants
Tuyet Bach Tran (3/02): advocate for Vietnamese immigrants
Beatriz Otero (6/02): founder of the Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center
Pilar Laugel (1/99): now-retired teacher who specialized in helping Immigrants
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Blog.html
PBS programs such as Washington Week, Frontline and the NewsHour are quick to take the Bush Administration to task on issues such as granting more rights to undocumented aliens and more stringent post-9/11 standards on Middle Eastern travelers, but God forbid people gather next door to the PBS studios in the hope of finding a job!
This is posted on the DCRTV web site, a gossip site dedicated to the local
DC media:
"WETA Frowns On Plan For Day Laborer Facility (7/31)" - The Northern Virginia Journal reports that WETA is not too happy about Arlington County's plan to build a $100,000-plus pavilion for day laborers adjacent to the public TV/FMer's Shirlington office and studio complex. Recently testifying before the county board, WETA CEO Sharon Percy Rockefeller (Democratic Senator Rockefeller's wife) predicted a "pretty hostile environment" for Channel 26 and FM 90.9 employees who could be accosted by day laborers (mainly immigrant Hispanic men waiting for work) while walking from one building to another. According to the Journal, Rockefeller added that putting the facility near WETA's south Arlington complex would also inconvenience high-profile guests who arrive to be interviewed on the "NewsHour," which is produced by WETA for PBS..."
WETA has a long-running "Hometown Heroes" segment that it runs throughout its broadcast day. Here are a few past heroes it might want to consult to increase "sensitivity":
Sonia Gutierrez (11/02): provides adult education to immigrants
Tuyet Bach Tran (3/02): advocate for Vietnamese immigrants
Beatriz Otero (6/02): founder of the Calvary Bilingual Multicultural Learning Center
Pilar Laugel (1/99): now-retired teacher who specialized in helping Immigrants
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Blog.html
The above is from a blog I ran across when researching this issue after watching a segment on the news. There are other articles on the web on this issue, a search through Google will help you find them.
The WETA incident is yet another example of - do as I say, not as I do. Actions speak louder than words and it appears that the far left believe the message of tolerance is more important than being tolerant.
What do you think? Has the far left lost touch with their self-proclaimed agenda?
Have other examples to share?
QUOTE(beladonna @ Aug 8 2003, 12:16 PM)
The WETA incident is yet another example of - do as I say, not as I do. Actions speak louder than words and it appears that the far left believe the message of tolerance is more important than being tolerant.
What do you think? Has the far left lost touch with their self-proclaimed agenda?
Have other examples to share?
What do you think? Has the far left lost touch with their self-proclaimed agenda?
Have other examples to share?
Since when is PBS a bastion of "far left" thought? Are you so far on the right that anyone left of center is automatically on the far left? Now considering that PBS is by no means on the far left, I will attempt to answer your question as it pertains to those who actually are on the far left. No, not in my experience. I believe in a democratic socialist government. For argument's sake, let's say that puts me on the far left. Do I still believe in the same ideals and positions that I always have since first adopting my views? Yes. So, I have not lost touch with my own beliefs. I can't speak for any other individuals, however. The far left as a whole, on the other hand, hasn't either. Remember all the anti-war protests back before the war? Also, I'd like to ask you whether you were refering to only America or to those on the far left around the world? What do you believe constitutes being on the "far left?" And about this "self-proclaimed agenda" you speak of, other than being accused by those on the right of a "hidden" agenda, what other kind of agenda would a group of like-minded individuals have?
[QUOTE]
What do you think? Has the far left lost touch with their self-proclaimed agenda?
In order to debate this, we would have to accept your premise that WETA, PBS, "The News Hour" and Mrs. Sharon Percy Rockefeller are representatives of the "far left". The WETA board of trustees includes such lefties as Joyce Rumsfeld, wife of the secretary of defense while Sharon Percy Rockefeller herself serves on the boards of PepsiCo & Sothebys. You are going to have to look elsewhere for examples for your point.
Tony
What do you think? Has the far left lost touch with their self-proclaimed agenda?
In order to debate this, we would have to accept your premise that WETA, PBS, "The News Hour" and Mrs. Sharon Percy Rockefeller are representatives of the "far left". The WETA board of trustees includes such lefties as Joyce Rumsfeld, wife of the secretary of defense while Sharon Percy Rockefeller herself serves on the boards of PepsiCo & Sothebys. You are going to have to look elsewhere for examples for your point.
Tony
Am I so far to the right? Now, THAT is really funny!
I am the middle Nu Marx. Fiscally conservative – for the most part socially liberal – pro-national security. I am your average American. Perhaps you are just so far left YOU don’t know center when you see it.
PBS and NPR have both been labeled left leaning much longer than I have been debating politics. Of course, anyone who is far left could not detect this because they are hearing what they consider to be the truth. Those of us who ARE in fact middle of the road politically CAN detect the agenda whether it is coming from the right leaning FOX or the left leaning PBS.
Sharon Percy Rockefeller has served the public broadcasting community for nearly twenty-five years as a leader and policy maker. She has been president and CEO of WETA, Washington, D.C.'s flagship public television and radio stations since 1989.
http://www.weta.org/inside/officers/sharon.html
She stood in front of the council in Arlington speaking against a plan to help immigrants. She basically stated that these labor workers would harass her employees, that it didn’t look good to have that element hanging around the property where the pretty people were being dropped off in their limos for interviews.
I would lay down money that if a Republican had made those comments, it would have made front page news, headlines reading – Conservatives Intolerant of Immigrant Labor Workers. But, because it was the CEO of PBS, wife of a Democratic Senator, I had to find the skinny in a blog.
As so eloquently stated by Brian Wilson, "The "very high office holders" that WETA is so concerned about will now have to contend with the sight of poor, but hard-working people nearby, when they come to address their PBS audience."
I am the middle Nu Marx. Fiscally conservative – for the most part socially liberal – pro-national security. I am your average American. Perhaps you are just so far left YOU don’t know center when you see it.
PBS and NPR have both been labeled left leaning much longer than I have been debating politics. Of course, anyone who is far left could not detect this because they are hearing what they consider to be the truth. Those of us who ARE in fact middle of the road politically CAN detect the agenda whether it is coming from the right leaning FOX or the left leaning PBS.
Sharon Percy Rockefeller has served the public broadcasting community for nearly twenty-five years as a leader and policy maker. She has been president and CEO of WETA, Washington, D.C.'s flagship public television and radio stations since 1989.
http://www.weta.org/inside/officers/sharon.html
She stood in front of the council in Arlington speaking against a plan to help immigrants. She basically stated that these labor workers would harass her employees, that it didn’t look good to have that element hanging around the property where the pretty people were being dropped off in their limos for interviews.
QUOTE
"We do not favor this option. It would absolutely complicate our lives and make it difficult for our employees and our guests," Rockefeller said.
"I don't think it's going to be a very open and welcoming environment for very high office holders in the United States," she said, referring to the frequent guests at the WETA building.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94087,00.html
"I don't think it's going to be a very open and welcoming environment for very high office holders in the United States," she said, referring to the frequent guests at the WETA building.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94087,00.html
I would lay down money that if a Republican had made those comments, it would have made front page news, headlines reading – Conservatives Intolerant of Immigrant Labor Workers. But, because it was the CEO of PBS, wife of a Democratic Senator, I had to find the skinny in a blog.
As so eloquently stated by Brian Wilson, "The "very high office holders" that WETA is so concerned about will now have to contend with the sight of poor, but hard-working people nearby, when they come to address their PBS audience."
The "NIMBYS" here are all right wingers, since our state is predominately, some say overwhelmingly , conservative. Conservatives want more prisons and longer sentences. Can't find a place to build anywhere in the largest state in the union LOL
Pro-developement, unless it is a housing sub division in my view of the mountains etc etc
NIMBYS come in all flavors I am sure though.
A better example is movie stars that decry oil pulling up in thier SUVs. Gun control advocates that have concealed weapons permits, though less so. Animal rights activists that drive giant SUVs, wear leather, and live in large wood houses that they had to cut down a forest to build. Yes, the left does have it's share of hypocrites too LOL
I think the left of center poeple are the least hypocrital and the most common sense oriented IMO- like capitalism, but want it to be ethical, want a healthy enviroment, but a balance etc.
Pro-developement, unless it is a housing sub division in my view of the mountains etc etc
NIMBYS come in all flavors I am sure though.
A better example is movie stars that decry oil pulling up in thier SUVs. Gun control advocates that have concealed weapons permits, though less so. Animal rights activists that drive giant SUVs, wear leather, and live in large wood houses that they had to cut down a forest to build. Yes, the left does have it's share of hypocrites too LOL
I think the left of center poeple are the least hypocrital and the most common sense oriented IMO- like capitalism, but want it to be ethical, want a healthy enviroment, but a balance etc.
First off, PBS is not the "far left." That's a term thrown around way too much now used to describe anyone to the left of Barry Goldwater. The PBS is alternative, and it can be both leftist and rightist. In addition to "liberal" shows like Point of View, they also air the Nightly Business Report and a Wall Street Journal show. Their news sometimes carries stories that the rest of the news doesn't, and I suppose that makes them leftist, in the fact that they're willing to report the truth occasionally, but it far from brands them as the 'far left." At the very most, some of the people working at PBS might be New York liberals, ala the New York Times editorialists.
Second off, I've never heard of this "self-proclaimed agenda" you speak of. That just sorta came out of left field.
I just hate it when someone comes in making obnoxious generalizations about "liberals" or "conservatives." Don't attack a guy for being anti-gun when he hasn't ever talked about the subject.
Second off, I've never heard of this "self-proclaimed agenda" you speak of. That just sorta came out of left field.
I just hate it when someone comes in making obnoxious generalizations about "liberals" or "conservatives." Don't attack a guy for being anti-gun when he hasn't ever talked about the subject.
Also, PBS news is very MATURE with no three way yelling matches and you can actually get informed and hear all sides of the issues. There's none of that loud and gawdy intermission music nor any corny catch phrases. It's straight up NEWS with actual sit down and discuss the issues in an calm and intelligent manor. God forbid the rest of the stations pick up on it. 
Yeah, that's one of the things a really like about the News Hour, their debates, unlike those on Fox, are civil and informative, not just shouting matches where the right-wing host eventually ends up cutting his "guest"'s mic. Not to mention there's no commercials, so you get much more news and much less products you don't need.
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Aug 8 2003, 04:04 PM)
I just hate it when someone comes in making obnoxious generalizations about "liberals" or "conservatives." Don't attack a guy for being anti-gun when he hasn't ever talked about the subject.
RS,
First of all, I did NOT generalize. I clearly stated the FAR left. You clearly read into it what you wanted to.
Secondly, for a person who hates generalizations, you certainly are good at making them.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=2914&st=30#
Another good example, in my opinion.
If the question read:
What do you think? Has the WETA lost touch with their self-proclaimed agenda?
then it would be a discussion and not a crudely disguised attempt to bash the left.
Im sure noone asked the far left what they think about the project, and WETA is not a political representative of the far left as far as I have ever heard.
It appears you were looking for an argument instead, and succeeded.
What do you think? Has the WETA lost touch with their self-proclaimed agenda?
then it would be a discussion and not a crudely disguised attempt to bash the left.
Im sure noone asked the far left what they think about the project, and WETA is not a political representative of the far left as far as I have ever heard.
It appears you were looking for an argument instead, and succeeded.
I have to agree with Artemise here. If I posted a thread about Operation Rescue, but made the question broadened to say, "has the far right lost touch with its agenda?" It wouldn't make much sense.
PBS is NOT a far left organization by any stretch of the imagination.
PBS is NOT a far left organization by any stretch of the imagination.
QUOTE(beladonna @ Aug 8 2003, 03:55 PM)
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Aug 8 2003, 04:04 PM)
I just hate it when someone comes in making obnoxious generalizations about "liberals" or "conservatives." Don't attack a guy for being anti-gun when he hasn't ever talked about the subject.
RS,
First of all, I did NOT generalize. I clearly stated the FAR left. You clearly read into it what you wanted to.
Secondly, for a person who hates generalizations, you certainly are good at making them.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=2914&st=30#
Another good example, in my opinion.
This is almost a better example of your original post Bela.
RS preaches how he hates generalizations, but then in the Boyscout thread groups them all together and calls them homophobes.
Nice one Bela.
Armetise,
Point taken.
I can see how the question I posed appeared to bash the left. That was not the intent and I was not looking for an argument. I was attempting to demonstrate a double standard. It's a pet peeve of mine.
Can the question be changed to read as Armetise suggested?
What do you think? Has the WETA lost touch with their self-proclaimed agenda?
Point taken.
I can see how the question I posed appeared to bash the left. That was not the intent and I was not looking for an argument. I was attempting to demonstrate a double standard. It's a pet peeve of mine.
Can the question be changed to read as Armetise suggested?
What do you think? Has the WETA lost touch with their self-proclaimed agenda?
What "agenda" has WETA or any other PBS station for that matter proclaimed other than to produce quality programming?. Have they ever taken a public position that migrant day laborers need permanant facilities built for them to solicit from?. I didn't see anything in the original statement other than concern for the safety of employees and security of high profile News Hour guests, which include administration officials.
tony
tony
I really don't see this issue in terms of "liberal" or "conservative." WETA, whether "public" broadcaster or not, is making their stand in support of the power structure, in opposition to the "laboring" class. Though they may support the idea of such a pavilion politically, they don't want it in their backyard. Some support, eh?
I don't mean for my language to sound like some outdated marxist thought, but though the language context has changed over the years, the economic and social divisions have remained essentially unchanged.
Even in supporting projects to "help" poor laborers, many people prefer these men to be "invisible." NIMBYism arises in stratified society; it strikes both liberals and conservatives who are "supporting the power structure."
Most liberals feel that the "laboring" class should be helped out by society, but in sort of a vague way - they still want to wear blinders, but they want to feel that something is being done about the world "out there" beyond those blinders. For that matter, I should say most people feel that same way, regardless of politics.
So are these folks being hypocritical? Absolutely. But I don't see it as a betrayal of their liberalism; I see it as them participating in the more generalized hypocrisy so common to the middle and upper classes.
I don't mean for my language to sound like some outdated marxist thought, but though the language context has changed over the years, the economic and social divisions have remained essentially unchanged.
Even in supporting projects to "help" poor laborers, many people prefer these men to be "invisible." NIMBYism arises in stratified society; it strikes both liberals and conservatives who are "supporting the power structure."
Most liberals feel that the "laboring" class should be helped out by society, but in sort of a vague way - they still want to wear blinders, but they want to feel that something is being done about the world "out there" beyond those blinders. For that matter, I should say most people feel that same way, regardless of politics.
So are these folks being hypocritical? Absolutely. But I don't see it as a betrayal of their liberalism; I see it as them participating in the more generalized hypocrisy so common to the middle and upper classes.
Im glad they (WETA) lost. It should also give them opportunity for some new programming and Im also glad that those 'high administration officials' will have to take a good look at it when doing their business.
I do wonder if 100,000 could have been better used to employ the same people at permanent jobs. I wonder what effect making a permanent, temporary worker pavillion/hangout will have, but at least it will be a more sanitary place if they can keep up funds for maintenance. In years to come it could become just one more run down idea gone bad. For now at least theyre out of the rain.
I do wonder if 100,000 could have been better used to employ the same people at permanent jobs. I wonder what effect making a permanent, temporary worker pavillion/hangout will have, but at least it will be a more sanitary place if they can keep up funds for maintenance. In years to come it could become just one more run down idea gone bad. For now at least theyre out of the rain.
QUOTE
First of all, I did NOT generalize. I clearly stated the FAR left. You clearly read into it what you wanted to.
You said the PBS was the far left, clearly putting most people who call themselves at least slightly liberal on this site in the "far left" area. Then, you proceeded to claim that not only was PBS part of the "far left," they were a representation of the "far left," and that they (along with the whole "far left") somehow violated some "self-proclaimed ideal" but being elietists. Or at least until it became obvious that you weren't getting a very good reception on that one ...
I'm sure there's quite a few rightist forums where you can get slapped on the back for ripping on anyone who doesn't suscribe to every tenant of the GOP platform, but I doubt it'll happen here.
QUOTE
Secondly, for a person who hates generalizations, you certainly are good at making them.
What are you talking about? That I generalize everyone who's homophobic, racist or anti-Semitic as people I don't like? That I directed a post towards one entire side of an argument? That I said an organization that doesn't allow homosexuals to join is homophobic? Come on.
In any case, two wrong's wouldn't make a right anyway. If I see specific conservatives being hypocritical, I'll usually call them on it if I'm up for a fight, but I don't go around posting threads about perceived hypocrisies in conservative thought, because often times it's only the really vocal ones that are hypocritical.
Most members here who read my posts realize I do not tow the GOP line. They also know that I try to be as reasonable as possible in my posts. I also believe that most people here realize I was not trying to be inflammatory with my opening statement.
I don’t see much difference in this thread and the one listed below.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=2396&st=0&#
I DO see a difference in the way it is being received.
I don’t see much difference in this thread and the one listed below.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...pic=2396&st=0&#
I DO see a difference in the way it is being received.
BD, Notice that BJ adjusted her question and called herself making a broad generalization and amended her thread.
The beginning premise was that you were citing an example of the far left in the PBS news. We have had a long thread of disagreement over the bias of the media in a thread about the "myth" (or not) of the liberal media.
I think you are seeing a sustained disagreement about the definition of far left.
If you want to stick to a point without concession that many people disagree with then I think you will get a larger dose of flack.
I think liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and marxist all become guilty of hypocrisy at times. It is most likely to happen when adhering to an ideal will result in a sacrifice or perceived sacrifice. That is my two cents on the topic.
The beginning premise was that you were citing an example of the far left in the PBS news. We have had a long thread of disagreement over the bias of the media in a thread about the "myth" (or not) of the liberal media.
I think you are seeing a sustained disagreement about the definition of far left.
If you want to stick to a point without concession that many people disagree with then I think you will get a larger dose of flack.
I think liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and marxist all become guilty of hypocrisy at times. It is most likely to happen when adhering to an ideal will result in a sacrifice or perceived sacrifice. That is my two cents on the topic.
Eeyore,
I did concede the point.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=2941&st=0#
I realized that I had broadbrushed and shouldn't have. I really don't know what else to do.
I did concede the point.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...opic=2941&st=0#
I realized that I had broadbrushed and shouldn't have. I really don't know what else to do.
BD, the GOP comment was a half tounge-in-cheek hyperbole. Also, I did not start that thread, nor did I even post in it. It was a silly thread. In fact, just looking at the title, I never even viewed the thread until you gave me that link.
Of course, neither you or Billy Jean were trying to be inflammitory, but that doesn't mean that you weren't, nor does it mean it wasn't obvious that such blanket statements were going to aggrivate some people. The original post was by nature inflammitory, because it calls everyone to the left of PBS hypocrits. Did it even cross your mind that it might not be a good idea?
PBS is not the far left, and PBS does not have an agenda. Well, they have an agenda, but not the one you're talking about. According to PBS.org, "PBS uses the power of noncommercial television, the Internet and other media to enrich the lives of all Americans through quality programs and education services that inform, inspire and delight." I don't see anything about more rights for immigrants there. There may have been a show where they talked about how immigrants don't have enough rights or whatever, but that's far from a declaration of corporate philosophy. Does the fact that Fox has Howard Stern on TV mean that everything Howard Stern says is offical NewsCorp policy? Of course not.
This whoel topic is inherently flawed.
Of course, neither you or Billy Jean were trying to be inflammitory, but that doesn't mean that you weren't, nor does it mean it wasn't obvious that such blanket statements were going to aggrivate some people. The original post was by nature inflammitory, because it calls everyone to the left of PBS hypocrits. Did it even cross your mind that it might not be a good idea?
PBS is not the far left, and PBS does not have an agenda. Well, they have an agenda, but not the one you're talking about. According to PBS.org, "PBS uses the power of noncommercial television, the Internet and other media to enrich the lives of all Americans through quality programs and education services that inform, inspire and delight." I don't see anything about more rights for immigrants there. There may have been a show where they talked about how immigrants don't have enough rights or whatever, but that's far from a declaration of corporate philosophy. Does the fact that Fox has Howard Stern on TV mean that everything Howard Stern says is offical NewsCorp policy? Of course not.
This whoel topic is inherently flawed.
QUOTE(beladonna @ Aug 8 2003, 03:01 PM)
I am your average American. Perhaps you are just so far left YOU don’t know center when you see it.
PBS and NPR have both been labeled left leaning much longer than I have been debating politics. Of course, anyone who is far left could not detect this because they are hearing what they consider to be the truth. Those of us who ARE in fact middle of the road politically CAN detect the agenda whether it is coming from the right leaning FOX or the left leaning PBS.
While you said point taken, you implied that your words were interpreted incorrectly and you had made the mistake of unclear wording.
But you stuck to your guns when you addressed specifics in the case of npr and the issue of a blanket statement about the far left being a generalization. So I concluded that you did not concede a point.
I still so no double standard oriented witch hunt at work in this thread.
QUOTE
First of all, I did NOT generalize. I clearly stated the FAR left. You clearly read into it what you wanted to.
QUOTE
Point taken.
I can see how the question I posed appeared to bash the left. That was not the intent and I was not looking for an argument. I was attempting to demonstrate a double standard. It's a pet peeve of mine.
I can see how the question I posed appeared to bash the left. That was not the intent and I was not looking for an argument. I was attempting to demonstrate a double standard. It's a pet peeve of mine.
How about I close this thread AND the other one, and we can start the debate over with a more clear questions whenever anyone pleases? 
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.