Post by: Polarbear on October 25, 2004, 03:21:00 AM
--original text below--
Hey everyone, The press isn't really covering it, but there is an organized TERROR effort being directed against the Republican Party.
This is really important!
Republican National Committee (RNC) offices are being targeted by a the left in a campaign of street violence and theft. Labor Unions are sponsoring protestors who violently assault and take over RNC offices, signs are being vandalized, gun shots are being fired at RNC offices, burglars are stealing computers and information, property is being destroyed, and RNC supporters are being assaulted. These events are occuring nation-wide.
I don't know if you realize what this means, but it has serious implications. These criminal acts aren't just attacks on people we don't know and a party some of us don't support. These attacks are attacks on all of us. They are an attack on our political system. Your freedom is being taken away when they do this. When you fear being shot for supporting the Republican party, I would say your Freedom of Speach has been stolen. When you risk being attacked by the AFL-CIO for supporting the Republican party, I would say your Freedom of Assembly has been stolen. When you worry about graffiti and vandalism because you took part in your nation's electoral process, I would say your rights as a citizen, as enumerated in the Constitution, have been stolen.
These attacks don't just hurt the RNC. They hurt the process of a free people meeting to elect their leaders. These are old-fashioned street tactics. They've been used before to influence elections. Go ahead and look it up in your history book. The pictures of these guys are a little grainy, but you'll see them fighting other party members in the streets. These guys would riot and attack conservatives, religious people, and even liberals. They would go to political rallies and start breaking skulls. A lot of them were former soldiers-veterans of WW I. Don't be surprised if you have trouble reading their flags and posters-they're printed in German.
Yes, I'm talking about Nazis. These are the same tactics the Fascists used again and again to secure power. Look at Italy and Germany both. What's happening now happened there, too. The people didn't resist it then, either, and their nations became police states where one party ruled.
I'm not one-sided on this either. I don't support these attacks happening to Democrats and leftists, but that's who I place the blame for these attacks on. These aren't random attacks. Just look for who profits the most from this and you will probably find who's responsible. The Police may not have any leads, but I think we can connect the dots. Some Democrats would probably love to get their hands on a hard drive full of Republican plans and strategies. That's a straight-up intelligence operation right there. Those laptops and other stolen computers may show up in a pawn shop or at the bottom of a lake somewhere, but they were most likely stolen for intelligence purposes. Hell, the AFL-CIO was directly responsible for at least 2 attacks on RNC offices and at least 10 other aggressive protests. Read the info I've included. One AFL-CIO goon said, "Actually, we're storming into an office." It warms my heart to know those thugs haven't lost any of their well-known traditional penchant for violence and random assaults on people they view as their opponents.
I volunteered for the RNC in 1996. And I know a lot of people put their heart and soul into the process. They bring their families into it, make time after work to volunteer, and really work hard to support the party. They're the grassroots that the party process is grounded on. Without them making phone calls, planning fundraisers, greeting people on the street, brewing coffee, putting up signs, and putting out information it doesn't work. So I get upset when I read that a volunteer had to lock herself in an office while thugs looted the room outside. I get upset when I read they smashed a hole through a wall to get into an office to steal a computer. And I get upset when I read that they broke a guy's arm attacking an office and have resorted to shooting at RNC offices. Where is this supposed to end? It can't be over November 2nd.
Why should it be? If the Democrats win on the 2nd it will be in part because they took the battle to the streets. Why stop there? If it was me, I would keep up the efforts that secured me victory. Intimidation, assault, theft, attempted murder-Why not just torch their offices? Select the leadership for execution. They're easy to find. Why not go after their precinct leaders? (I was offered that job.) Take out a couple volunteer moms-that would quickly stifle people's interest in volunteering. All for the sake of winning an election. And why not?
After all, how important is it to you to get the right man into the most powerful political position in the world? A position that powerful almost requires that you do anything to secure it. At the very least you're protecting the world from the other guy. People's lives and fortunes hang in the balance. So what are you waiting for?
RISE UP!
STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!
RISE UP AND ARM YOURSELF!
FIGHT FOR YOUR PARTY AND FREE THE NATION FROM THE OTHER GUY!
DEFEND YOUR FREEDOM FROM THOSE WHO WOULD TAKE IT!
ARM YOURSELVES AND PROTECT LIBERTY!
BY STANDING YOU STRIKE A BLOW AGAINST THOSE TRAITORS!!!!
...or not. I don't think we need to resort to street brawling...yet. But what those people are doing is TERRORISM. Using force and the threat of force to get what you want is TERRORISM. It doesn't matter if you're in Al Qaeda or a trade union. Those people are TERRORISTS and they're engaging in TERROR tactics just like the Fascists did. Personally, I want to believe it means they're scared; that they're losing. Folks who are confident of their lead wouldn't do that-I hope. But at the very least I think the RNC is going to have to start defending themselves and their offices. Signs can't be protected-that kind of vandalism is just too easy. But offices are businesses. They're legitimate and deserve protection. I won't even address private homes and vehicles here. I wish the RNC would act to guard their establisments. I wish right-thinking people on the other side would turn in the TERRORISTS. And I wish these events weren't happening here in the USA. I've included information below for you to read and links to follow. This issue isn't going away any time soon.
Enjoy-Polarbear
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush's campaign office in Spokane burglarized, vandalized
By David Postman
Seattle Times chief political reporter
Offices that house President Bush's re-election campaign in Spokane were broken into and vandalized last night, the latest in a string of crimes at Republican offices across the country.
Workers arriving this morning found a hole smashed through the wall from an adjacent, vacant office. Bush campaign officials say a small amount of petty cash is missing and a computer and television had been moved and left near the hole.
"They must have gotten spooked because they ultimately left the computer and TV," said Bill Hyslop, the campaign's chairman for the Fifth Congressional District.
The computer and the TV had recently arrived in Spokane and the computer was loaded with information from the Republican get-out-the vote program.
Spokane police responded this morning and took the computer's monitor and the TV, Hyslop said.
"We obviously have no idea who did this and are not going to cast aspersions," said Hyslop, who served as U.S. attorney in Spokane under President George H.W. Bush.
In Bellevue last week , computers that stored the Republican get-out-the-vote database were stolen in a burglary at the Republican headquarters there . Bush campaign officials believe the break - ins are part of a broader attack on the president's re-election offices around the country, including a burglary in Canton, Ohio, last night, gun shots fired in West Virginia, Florida and Tennessee and union protestors storming offices in three Florida cities and Minneapolis.
There are no suspects in the burglaries or shootings and no injuries were reported.
Because the protests at campaign offices that were stormed were part of organized union demonstrations, Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot wrote a letter today to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney asking him to call off any future protests.
"In addition to the injuries, property damage and disruption associated with these acts, these events have created a threatening and intimidating atmosphere abhorrent to our democratic process," Racicot wrote.
The Spokane building leased by the state Republican party and serves as the area office for party operations as well as the campaign for the President and other Republican candidates.
Hyslop said that a security guard checked the building at about 6 a.m. today and did not report any disturbance.
But when construction crews working on the adjacent office arrived within 30 minutes later, they noticed the back door of the adjacent office had been pried open from an alleyway.
They also discovered that a hole appeared to have been kicked through the drywall separating the vacant space from the Bush offices. The computer and TV were found near the hole.
David Postman: 360-943-9882 or http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kur ... 070852.asp (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200410070852.asp)
This is an important article about the climate of FEAR Republicans are dealing with.
"this behavior suggests that the Kerry-Edwards supporters are so invested emotionally in the contest that they are willing ? no eager ? to alienate their neighbors."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232770/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232770/posts)
report of shot-up RNC office in Gettysburg
http://www.trapshooters.com/cfpages/thr ... messages=4 (http://www.trapshooters.com/cfpages/thread.cfm?threadid=49618&messages=4)
messages with info about the Tn. shooting, Fla attacks...
http://www.knoxgop.org/archives/000520.html (http://www.knoxgop.org/archives/000520.html)
Knox cty. RNC article about shooting
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105500/posts (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1105500/posts)
RNC office vandalized in Ohio
http://www.musil.blogspot.com/2004_09_0 ... chive.html (http://www.musil.blogspot.com/2004_09_05_musil_archive.html)
Series of articles from LA blogger about Climate of Fear
http://www.wham1180.com/main.html (http://www.wham1180.com/main.html)
-NY Republican just had his office broken into!!!
http://www.komotv.com/stories/33333.htm (http://www.komotv.com/stories/33333.htm)
Wa. State RNC HQ hit, laptops stolen
additional links:
http://www.strikefear.com/ (http://www.strikefear.com/)
site with links to these events and others
--------------------------------------------------end of original text
Recent events have overtaken my essay, too-there have been more breakins and organized thuggery at the early polls in Florida. You get the picture. I know some here don't support Bush. That's fine. Neither candidate is the ideal I would like to see. But the process IS important. Our system has survived for a few years because it was an opportunity for the people to exercise their free will and select who they wished to lead. Politics in America are meant to be a spectator sport. But once the cycle is over, the last ballots are counted, we're still neighbors. We still have to live with each other. Recent political events show that more and more of us are turning the system, to paraphrase Von Clauswitz, into merely "war by other means." I don't want to live in a society so stratified and tightly wound that party affiliation is a call to arms and a reason to fight. Once that door is opened we have civil war. Politics by the bullet, not the ballot box. That's my concern and I want to share it with you.
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Antigen on October 25, 2004, 08:06:00 AM
I've had friends arrested and/or threatened w/ bodily harm for making political demonstrations before. In NYC, over a thousand people were arrested and treated badly before and during the RNC.
The only diversion here is that the brown shirts seem to be getting a small dose of their own medicine. Sorry, my heart does not bleed for them.
Religion is based . . . mainly on fear . . . fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race.
--Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, educator, mathemetician, and social critic
Post by: Polarbear on October 25, 2004, 11:43:00 AM
As for Brown Shirts, that's cheap. Considering which groups have been trying to intimidate and scare people at the polls lately and assaulting people in campaign offices-it doesn't seem to fit at all.
Take a look at this and tell me support these tactics.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ ... -news-palm (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pglitch23oct23,0,3825651,print.story?coll=sfla-news-palm)
Early voting brings cries of bullying
By Brittany Wallman
Staff Writer
October 23, 2004
On Election Day, voters will be protected from campaign pressures by a 50-foot cone, an invisible barrier that campaign workers cannot breach. Not so for early voters.
While the Voter's Bill of Rights in state law says they have a right to "vote free from coercion or intimidation by elections officers or any other person," a glitch in the newer early voting law does not include the same 50-foot guarantee.
As a result, with early voting taking place in busy public places like City Halls and libraries, voters are voicing complaints of being blocked by political mobs, or being singled out for their political views. Others say they have been grabbed, screamed at and cursed by political partisans of all stripes.
Republican Rep. Tom Feeney of Oviedo said the antagonizers are "Kerry thugs" out to harass Bush voters.
"If you ask me whether I believe there is an organized effort to intimidate Republican voters, the answer is absolutely yes," said Feeney.
The Republican Party is calling on the secretary of state's office for help, asking that early voting rules be clarified.
The secretary of state's office has not yet responded.
"Significant numbers of people have already been deterred from voting," wrote Republican Party Chairwoman Carole Jean Jordan to Secretary of State Glenda Hood, "and this will continue until corrective measures are taken."
Democratic Party officials in Tallahassee said they've had some complaints, too.
"We have had incidents as well," said Christine Anderson, spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign. "We've had quite a few."
She said the party hasn't taken affidavits from voters and found it shocking the Republicans were so focused on the issue rather than working to make sure people can vote.
"It's just absurd they would try to accuse us of intimidation efforts," said Anderson.
Permits in Palm Beach County show that the SEIU union and other Democratic groups have been holding rallies at early voting locations, where they have a captive audience of voters standing in line. Elections Supervisor Theresa LePore said the lines are long because voters are brought in by the busload.
"Special interest groups are trying to whip everybody into a frenzy and get everybody upset," she said. "Campaigns and their observers are confronting the workers and the voters. Things have gotten nasty and ugly."
LePore said the county has an ordinance that forbids interference in county business in the building and they are citing that law to the campaigners. Her attorney has told her that an area at each polling place can be set aside for solicitation so she planned to do so.
LePore said campaign workers followed voters into polling places and handed out literature next to the voting machines. Other voters standing in line were told the machines don't work and that they should vote absentee.
Gisela Salas, deputy elections supervisor in Broward County, said even though early voting "doesn't have that voter solicitation rule, so to speak," her office has posted signs saying "no campaigning beyond this point" and have had cooperation for the most part. Still, there were complaints in Broward.
Florida Senate Minority Leader Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, one of the co-sponsors of the early voting law, said it's a shame that everything must be spelled out.
"I wish people would use common sense in terms of how they approached these things," said Klein. "It's a new law. Certainly there's a few things we need to go back in the legislation and fix. We are going to have to go back and put more specific rules in about how early voting should work."
State Rep. Irv Slosberg, a Democrat from Boca Raton, said he wasn't happy with the early voting, either, because the rules changed daily.
"Someone from the elections office has to come out rather than relying on the county library to make these decisions," said Slosberg. "That's what's happening. It's up to the library people. ... Every day's a new game."
Republican Party senior adviser Mindy Tucker Fletcher said she had more than a dozen affidavits from voters around the state that would be forwarded to Hood's office.
According to the affidavits Fletcher released:
One woman who voted early in Boca Raton, at the Southwest County Regional Library, complained that as she stood in line, two men behind her were "trashing our president," Fletcher said, declining to identify the woman. She tried to ignore them. Then the man touched her arm and said, "Who are you voting for?"
"I said, `I don't think that's an appropriate question,'" the woman said she responded.
"Uh oh! We have a Bush supporter here," screamed the man behind her.
For the 2 1/2 hours she had to wait in line, she was heckled by the man. As they neared the voting room, someone in the rear of the line yelled, "I sure hope everyone here is voting for Kerry!" she reported.
That's when the man behind her held his hand over her head and screamed, "We have a Republican right here!" There were "boos and jeers" from the crowd.
"I felt intimidated, harassed and threatened!" the woman wrote in her complaint to the Republican Party.
Elaine Fandino complained to the Republican Party that she took her mother to vote on South Military Trail in Palm Beach County and was confronted by 25 people supporting John Kerry for president. The crowd was "very angry and used foul language," she reported. She said the man next to her said, "Where's my shotgun?"
In Broward County, at the regional library in Pembroke Pines, a voter complained that Kerry supporters used abusive language about President Bush and had signs and banners within 50 feet of the entrance.
Kerry supporters were "shoving anti-Bush propaganda at us," complained the voter, who said he shouted back "Vote President Bush!"
A woman who voted in Plantation at the West Regional Courthouse said she was offended to see five or six people with "huge stick on badges" for Kerry/Edwards, standing near the voting machines.
"Never in all the years of voting do we remember being allowed to show a badge or poster or literature while inside the area where the voters are standing ready to cast their vote," she wrote.
Juan D'Arce of Miami complained to the Republicans that he tried early voting in downtown Miami. He was wearing a Bush pin, but he couldn't stand the taunting, so he turned away and did not vote.
Howard Sherman complained about his voting experience at North Shore Branch Library in Miami-Dade County. He found a crowd of Kerry supporters blocking the door.
"They were positioned directly in front of the entrance to the library in such a manner that it would be impossible to avoid them while entering the polling place," he reported.
Sherman said he tried to slip through the thinnest part of the crowd, but a woman in a Kerry T-shirt grabbed his arm and asked if he was voting for Kerry.
"I seem to recall from civics class that this sort of electioneering is illegal," Sherman complained to the Republicans.
Republican Lawrence Gottfried, who became a poll watcher in Delray Beach after what he thought was inappropriate behavior at the polls, said the things he saw upset him.
Gottfried said that while working at the Delray poll, actor Danny DeVito and his wife, actress Rhea Perlman, showed up. Gottfried is a fan, but he didn't ask for an autograph.
"I said, `Look Mr. DeVito, I'm a big fan of yours and Rhea's, but you are blocking the entrance. You're campaigning, you've got a Kerry-Edwards button on, and it's not appropriate."
Gottfried, who used to be a Democrat, said the things he saw were "ridiculous."
"There is a time for partisanship and it's OK to have a different point of view, but don't violate the sanctity of the polling area," he said.
Copyright © 2004, South Florida Sun-Sentinel
THESE ARE INSTANCES OF THE USE OF FORCE, OR THE THREAT OF FORCE, TO GET THE END YOU DESIRE. THAT IS BETTER KNOWN AS TERRORISM.
When you engage in TERROR to get what you want you are a TERRORIST. People attempting to intimidate folks at the polls are TERRORISTS. They are also apparently the same kind of thugs who shoot up political offices, vandalize offices, and assault their ideological opponents.
These people are the Brown Shirts of 1930s Germany. When will people realize that we're crafting the chains around our ankles the same way those people did then?
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Anonymous on October 25, 2004, 12:23:00 PM
Then you have the Republican bias in the media. Why would you believe these allegations are not also true of Republicans? In fact the politics of fear have been well demonstrated to be the basis for Bush policies. That's why the world is less safe today than it was on 9/11.
Are Republicans playing dirty tricks posing as Democrats to discredit the Democrats? Who knows where the truth lies?
Post by: Mister Pink on October 25, 2004, 02:08:00 PM
Post by: Polarbear on October 25, 2004, 08:36:00 PM
Dis`en*fran"chise, v. t.
To disfranchise; to deprive of the rights of a citizen. --
{Dis`en*fran"chise*ment}, n.
Who, exactly, can you prove Bush denied their Constitutional Rights in 2000? I think you're not entirely correct with that accusation.
There are many people who are truly disenfranchised by their states-but that is LEGAL under the Constitution as long as it is not "...on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."Amendment XV, Section 1.
The states generally apply it to convicted felons. I remember they were turned away from polling places, but none of those who were turned away were victims of the Bush campaign, but instead their own states.
I don't support illegal acts by either party. But a majority of the reported acts seem to point to the Left/DNC, not the Republicans. The research I've done points to widespread acts agains Republicans, not Democrats. How many Democrat offices have been assaulted, vandalized, Burglarized, and their workers forced to hide or injured by organized union protestors? I am willing to bet no DNC office has been shot at.
But I'll freely state, I know the RNC or its supporters have committed their own dirty tricks. The only reports I have seen that are connected to them involve selective voter registration scams in the West. Nevada, I believe. And I have seen mentions of signs being vandalized, as well.
I don't think you can compare Bush's political stance that we have to act to stop terrorists who seek to commit acts of murder here as the same as the Climate of Fear that I have written about. I'm talking about direct action in the streets, intimidation, and assaults NOT alarmist political rhetoric. There's a big difference.
One involves a threat of force against you, or the use of force to attain a desired end. The other involves political rhetoric not directed at you, but intended to explain a common threat. Bush has not threatened you with assault, or actually assaulted you. He's operating in the market of ideas while these thugs go directly to force. That's the difference. Those that are engaging in that kind of stuff are using the tactics of the Fascists to keep the opposition cowed.
This is important because once you unleash force, and get away with it in this system, you invite the opposition to retaliate. I think at this point the RNC has every reason to start organizing groups to protect their offices, their membership, and supporters. Once that happens, and it would be legitimate to begin organizing, you have gangs in the streets.
If I was in Florida right now I think I would be justified in getting my like-minded supporters together to go to the polls based on the apparent need for self-defense. That could eventually lead to fighting in the streets. It all goes downhill from there.
Once someone kills in self defense there will be such an outcry and so much more fighting it could easily spiral out of control. That's civil war.
And that's what I don't want to see. So that's why I bring it up.
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Polarbear on October 25, 2004, 08:39:00 PM
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Deborah on October 25, 2004, 10:08:00 PM
Here its hard to hear anything on talk radio except the radical, righteous, right.
WBAP has them lined up all day long. There is no Dem equivalent.
Always have wonder why. And the conclusion I gave is the best I can come up with.
Post by: Anonymous on October 25, 2004, 10:11:00 PM
Read in detail how Florida disenfranchised many who were NOT felons.
http://www.GregPalast.com (http://www.GregPalast.com)
Post by: Anonymous on October 25, 2004, 10:14:00 PM
but the articles quoted by Polarbear have such an obvious Republican bent it's painful!
Post by: Polarbear on October 25, 2004, 11:30:00 PM
Interesting thing is, according to her, no one did what you are accusing them of. Instead, she said that people in the news business, or at least at NBC see what they do as mere entertainment. They have no illusions about it. Why else do you think the national news is a buffet of stories-1 human interest, 1 for old people, 1 family story, 1 home town or patriotic story, 1 national issue, and 1 crisis story? It's a shotgun blast to appeal to the widest base possible.
The only news channel that is considered Conservative-oriented is Fox News, and I wouldn't consider them that conservative since they dish up the same crap as other channels.
As for talk radio-yes, that is predominantly conservative radio. I have no idea why. Liberals try to get ahead on it, but other than Tom Lykis and a few others I can't think of any. Well, there is that failure Air America.
I will show you findings in a moment to support this from the Media Research Center.
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Polarbear on October 25, 2004, 11:39:00 PM
In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets ? including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS ? on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the "media elite" were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article "Media and Business Elites." The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman's subsequent book, "The Media Elite," became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.
KEY FINDINGS
81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media?s vote.
Lichter and Rothman's survey of journalists discovered that "Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum."
"Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right ? a margin of seven-to-one."
Only one percent strongly agreed that environmental problems were ovestated, while a majority of 54 percent strongly disagreed.
90 percent favored abortion.
80 percent supported "strong affirmative action for blacks."
54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent who regarded it as wrong.
White House Reporters
In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book "Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press." As reported in the MRC's June 1996 MediaWatch, Walsh counted 50 votes by White House correspondents for the Democratic entry compared to just seven for the Republican.
KEY FINDINGS
In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot.
In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush.
In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.
In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, two voted for Ronald Reagan.
In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford.
Conservative Reporters Few...and Getting Fewer
OVERVIEW
In 1996, as a follow-up to a 1988 survey, the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) surveyed 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers of all sizes across the nation, asking "What is your political leaning?" Results of the survey were published in ASNE's 1997 report The Newspaper Journalists of the ?90s, highlights of which appeared in the MRC's May 1997 MediaWatch.
KEY FINDINGS
In 1988, 62 percent of journalists identified themselves as "Democrat or liberal" or "lean to Democrat or liberal." In 1996, 61 percent said they were liberal/Democrat or leaning that way.
In 1988, 22 percent identified themselves as "Republican or conservative" or "lean to Republican or conservative." By 1996 that figure had declined to 15 percent.
Most Recent Data: Five Times More Journalists
Are Liberal Than Conservative
OVERVIEW
In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to one conducted by the same group (then known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates and the report was released May 23, 2004.
KEY FINDINGS
Five times more national outlet journalists identify themselves as ?liberal? (34 percent) than ?conservative? (just 7 percent). Just over half of the journalists (54 percent) say they are ?moderate.?
The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.
Local reporters are also more liberal than conservative. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.
Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are ?not critical enough? of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been ?too critical.? In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given ?too much? coverage to then-President Clinton?s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of ?too little? coverage of Clinton?s achievements.
Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, ?The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.? Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.
Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: ?The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance ? either liberal or conservative ? is Fox News Channel,? Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).
--This information isn't just from one source, either. These studies are from all over and referenced by the MRC. Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Polarbear on October 25, 2004, 11:48:00 PM
WHAT MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA SAY ABOUT LIBERAL BIAS
Admissions of Liberal Bias
"I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful."
-- CBS's 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg's book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN's Larry King Live, June 5, 2002
"Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I'm counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will."
-- ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 2002
"[Journalists] have a certain worldview based on being in Manhattan...that isn?t per se liberal, but if you look at people there, they lean? in that direction." ? Columbia Journalism Review publisher David Laventhol, as reported in "Leaning on the Media" by Mark Jurkowitz, The Boston Globe, January 17, 2002.
"There is a liberal bias. It?s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for ?- most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume?s bosses are liberal and they?re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut." ? Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas in an admission on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don't have, and some people interpret that to be liberal. It's not a liberal, it's humanitarian and that's a vastly different thing." ?- Walter Cronkite, March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.
"There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I?m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don?t trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites? have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it?s hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don?t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we?re going to slant the news. We don?t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg?s report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton?s health care plan 'wacky??...
"?Reality Check? suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: `Time Out!? You?d have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else -- like Albania." ? CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
"I think this is another reflection of the overwhelming journalistic tilt towards liberalism and those programs. Now the question is whether that?s bad or not, and that?s another debate. But the idea that many of us, and my colleagues deny that there is this kind of bias is nuts, because there is in our world. I forget what the surveys show but most of us are Democratic and probably most of us line up in the fairly liberal world." ? Time Washington contributing editor Hugh Sidey responding to a caller who asked if journalists are in favor of affirmative action, July 21, 1995 C-SPAN Washington Journal.
"As much as we try to think otherwise, when you?re covering some- one like yourself, and your position in life is insecure, she?s your mascot. Something in you roots for her. You?re rooting for your team. I try to get that bias out, but for many of us it?s there." ? Time Senior Writer Margaret Carlson quoted in The Washington Post, March 7, 1994.
"I think liberalism lives ? the notion that we don?t have to stay where we are as a society, we have promises to keep, and it is liberalism, whether people like it or not, which has animated all the years of my life. What on Earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country? It was people who wanted to change things for the better." ? Charles Kuralt talking with Morley Safer on the CBS special, One for the Road with Charles Kuralt, May 5, 1994.
"I won't make any pretense that the American Agenda is totally neutral. We do take a position. And I think the public wants us now to take a position. If you give both sides and 'Well, on the one hand this and on the other that'--I think people kind of really want you to help direct their thinking on some issues." ? ABC News reporter Carole Simpson on CNBC's Equal Time, August 9, 1994.
"I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we?re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking." ? ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.
"The group of people I?ll call The Press ? by which I mean several dozen political journalists of my acquaintance, many of whom the Buchanan administration may someday round up on suspicion of having Democratic or even liberal sympathies ? was of one mind as the season?s first primary campaign shuddered toward its finish. I asked each of them, one after another, this question: If you were a New Hampshire Democrat, whom would you vote for? The answer was always the same; and the answer was always Clinton. In this group, in my experience, such unanimity is unprecedented....
"Almost none is due to calculations about Clinton being ?electable?...and none at all is due to belief in Clinton?s denials in the Flowers business, because no one believes these denials. No, the real reason members of The Press like Clinton is simple, and surprisingly uncynical: they think he would make a very good, perhaps a great, President. Several told me they were convinced that Clinton is the most talented presidential candidate they have ever encountered, JFK included." ? New Republic Senior Editor Hendrik Hertzberg, March 9, 1992 issue.
"We?re unpopular because the press tends to be liberal, and I don?t think we can run away from that. And I think we?re unpopular with a lot of conservatives and Republicans this time because the White House press corps by and large detested George Bush, probably for good and sufficient reason, they certainly can cite chapter and verse. But their real contempt for him showed through in their reporting in a way that I think got up the nose of the American people." ? Time writer William A. Henry III on the PBS November 4, 1992 election-night special The Finish Line.
"Indeed, coverage of the campaign vindicated exactly what conservatives have been saying for years about liberal bias in the media. In their defense, journalists say that though they may have their personal opinions, as professionals they are able to correct for them when they write. Sounds nice, but I?m not buying any." ? Former Newsweek reporter Jacob Weisberg in The New Republic, November 23, 1992 issue.
"There is no such thing as objective reporting...I've become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That's my subversive mission." ? Boston Globe environmental reporter Dianne Dumanoski at an Utne Reader symposium May 17-20, 1990. Quoted by Micah Morrison in the July 1990 American Spectator.
"I do have an axe to grind...I want to be the little subversive person in television."
? Barbara Pyle, CNN Environmental Editor and Turner Broadcasting Vice President for Environmental Policy, as quoted by David Brooks in the July 1990 American Spectator.
"I'm not sure it's useful to include every single point of view simply in order to cover every base because you can come up with a program that's virtually impossible for the audience to sort out." ? PBS Senior Producer Linda Harrar commenting on PBS's ten-part series, Race to Save The Planet, to MRC and reported in the December 1990 MediaWatch.
"As the science editor at Time I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy." ? Time Science Editor Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal Journal column.
"Clearly the networks have made that decision now, where you'd have to call it [global warming stories] advocacy." ? NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Andrea Mitchell at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal Journal column.
I find it interesting to hear that people see the news as right-wing and not the other way arond.
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Anonymous on October 26, 2004, 12:06:00 AM
That most journalists may vote democrat doesn't surprise me either. It doesn't mean to say that they don't self-censor the stories they write to suit their political master's ideologies. Any smart journalist will self censor to keep their jobs especially since 9-11. In essence the vast majority of US journalists have had to become cheerleaders for the administration and no wonder when those who have chosen to raise the alarm about Bush's attacks on our liberties have either lost their jobs or been shut out. And draping yourself in the flag as mediaresearch seems to do is a sure way to shut people up.
Patriotism is the first refuge of the scoundrel
(was that Bertrand Russel, again?)
Even then, those you call "liberals" i.e. Democrats, would be seen as quite conservative in the free world.
In other words, though the US was fairly right wing pre 9-11, since then it has become downright nasty, reactionary and dangerous, and even the liberals seem to be quite conservative.
So what we have in this election is a choice between the right wing and the more right wing. And the media don't say that!
Post by: Anonymous on October 26, 2004, 12:14:00 AM
Post by: thepatriot on October 26, 2004, 09:10:00 AM
Quote
On 2004-10-25 19:08:00, Deborah wrote:
"
Uh, maybe its because the person who owns the media (radio or tv) is republican. and they do 'edit' every piece of journalism before its aired. And an employee will be fired for reporting unapproved content.
Here its hard to hear anything on talk radio except the radical, righteous, right.
WBAP has them lined up all day long. There is no Dem equivalent.
Always have wonder why. And the conclusion I gave is the best I can come up with. "
TV owned by a Republican? ok Fox News and Rupert Merdock, but what about CNN, CBS,NBC,ABC owned by REpubs? sorry Deb when you have guys like Peter Jennings, Dan Rather Cokie Roberts, I see no connservitive spin in their rhetoric. Have you ever attended a major University? what type of people do you think teach there. Our Universities where these liberal journalists are schooled are full of far left professors. In fact it is almost impossible for a conservitive professor to achieve tenure at any school, let alone for a student to challange their rhetoric and then end up with a D or F in their course. Thats what kind of educatinal back ground these Dan Rather types come from. The repubs may have talk radio locked up, but there are for more left media outlets as a whole. Either way you look at it its either spin for left or right propaganda and that leaves the guy in the middle with few choices to get his or her news from.
_________________
Sarasota Straight Escapee
Post by: Polarbear on October 26, 2004, 12:29:00 PM
He's got it right about the owners of the media and the educators of the journalists.
My personal experiences support it.
But this isn't the issue. We're getting off the topic. The source of the reports I cited isn't as important as the truth of the message. This news is widely reported and freely available from any number of sources.
The fact is, there have been a number of incidents, a certain organization is either connected or happy to profit from them, and the process of selecting a leader in a free nation is being threatened. If these violent tactics continue they will probably escalate and could ultimately lead to a violence in the streets. I look at places like the Balkans for a slice of the future if we accept these tactics as OK. Violence begets violence.
This isn't how I want my society to be shaped, either. I don't want to live in a system where we kill those who disagree. But that could be the result of a system that moves from the open exchange of ideas to intimidation and thuggery. I don't care about party in this-if my party supports it, I'll be upset about that, too. So far the only cases I'm aware of are 1. The widely reported RNC-connected voter registration group in Nevada that tossed out Kerry supporters' registration forms.
2. The mention IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED of Republican supporters also being a nuisance at the polls in Florida.
In these cases I will state I do not support them. I've been a poll observer and we maintained a respectful distance outside the station. No problem. We didn't twist any arms and it was a nice chance to talk to people. That's it. I would like to convince you that you have a common cause with your fellow man and that this is everyone's problem. Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Antigen on October 27, 2004, 11:34:00 AM
Quote
In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.
Context: http://www.corporations.org/media/ (http://www.corporations.org/media/)
Go to opensecrets.org and see where their money goes.
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature . . and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
--St. George Tucker, in his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries
Post by: southern boy on October 27, 2004, 03:38:00 PM
Post by: Polarbear on October 27, 2004, 08:39:00 PM
Look at the current scandal about 60 Minutes planning to air a shock story about explosives in Iraq, even though the story was reported a year and a half ago. The story was passed to them by a UN rep who contacted the NY Times as well. This story was already covered AND easily verifiable. They were holding it to use for election eve. Shoots holes in their credibility as far as I'm concerned.
GE has been seized on as proof that the news is not biased to the left. Now, I've heard stories in the past that they take care to insure they aren't negatively covered on NBC. Fine. It's dishonest, but even if that is common practice that does not prove a right wing leaning. The quotes I put up were from the well-known reporters themselves. What else do you need to see? The source that collected the quotes is supposedly non-partisan. Even if they were to be Republican-oriented, does it render that information invalid???
There is something else that comes to mind for Anonymous in that early post. Maybe the news media seems biased to the Right to you due to your own political beliefs being even further to the left than theirs.
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: southern boy on October 27, 2004, 09:06:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-10-27 17:39:00, Polarbear wrote:
"
There is something else that comes to mind for Anonymous in that early post. Maybe the news media seems biased to the Right to you due to your own political beliefs being even further to the left than theirs.
Enjoy-Polarbear"
What a brilliant statement, I always knew you were a smart one polar bear. :smokin:
Post by: Antny on October 27, 2004, 09:14:00 PM
Anyhow, if you want to sling terror tactics around in a partisan argument and you support Bush, you are being incredibly hipocritical. His whole campaign has been to discredit Kerry. He can't stand on his record...it sucks. His policies suck. He can only play on the biggest fear of all, "Terrorists want Kerry in office" They'll attack again...we'll be less safe..." over and over. That's terror tactics for you. I certainly don't condone theft and violence, but I must say that my own personal emotional response to the Bush Reign in America has been disgust to the point of action. That's why I'm online telling you this. I am intelligent enough to take action with my words. I feel incredibly powerless, and I see America headed down an incredibly wrong road behind some idealogical principles, mostly religious based. I see two controlling factions right now, the rich and the righteous. The far right wing Christian coalition that's pushing the anti-abortion pro war platform...(is that pro life?) and the wealthy faction that is pushing tax breaks (how does that make sense in war time economics?) I know the argument...give the rich tax breaks, and they'll create jobs. But they don't, they invest in stocks and bonds, etc...and live healthily off dividends hapilly ever after.
No, Bush and the controlling party right now are way out of line with what I hold to be American Values. I draw a distinction between American and Christian. An important distinction to make!
Post by: southern boy on October 27, 2004, 09:18:00 PM
Post by: Antny on October 27, 2004, 09:22:00 PM
I've seen a good proportion of Rebublican lawbreaking also when it comes to voter intimidation, and even trashing Democrats voter reg cards (that Nevada incident). Has America declined so much that we can't even hold a legitimate election anymore??? All the more reason to change the system. It's gotta start sometime!
Post by: southern boy on October 27, 2004, 09:27:00 PM
Post by: Antny on October 27, 2004, 09:53:00 PM
Quote
On 2004-10-27 18:18:00, southern boy wrote:
"Neither side has any credibility? All I hear you saying is negative remarks about the right party.[ This Message was edited by: southern boy on 2004-10-27 18:19 ]"
Actually, I do disagree with the Republican economic platform, and I don't like the idealogues that push the Christian agenda into the Federal election process. Aside from that, I think the Republicans are just Americans, with differing ideas than my own.
Bush himself is what I have been talking badly about. His Administrations policies have been horendous!
Post by: Polarbear on October 27, 2004, 10:15:00 PM
Kerry supporters called a black republican leader in Florida a racist and KKK supporter.
Republicans have been involved in disturbances in front of polling places.
A democrat tried to run down and kill Katherine Harris and her supporters with his car today in Florida.
Not to leave out the unsolved burglaries, vandalism, SHOOTINGS, and union-supported assaults on RNC offices nation-wide, voter irregularities on both sides that pushed the number of registered voters in Ohio above the population, and the various fraudulent voter drives. Things are a mess.
I think this is symptomatic of the death of community in America. It has been a problem for some time. Community and social interaction and civic pride have been withering for a while. But things have mainly been peaceful. The few flare-ups and outbreaks have been easily swept aside or met by the Police. And other things have only aroused interest briefly when they were too extreme to ignore. If this year isn't the trigger, maybe the next election will be. We could begin to see widespread violence as people realize it serves their needs easier than civility and polite disagreement.
I wish we could back away from this election and realize we've all been amped up by the parties this last year and that it's time to drop it and relax. I don't want to be at my neighbor's throat just because he isn't on my side. But that's what's being encouraged. Competition taken to a ridiculous extreme. maybe a deadly one. People have far too much invested in this to back away and admit it isn't important.
November 3 I hope my candidate is the winner. But I also hope we aren't prepared to fight in the streets over it. Regardless of who wins we're still neighbors. I value community and I don't want to see the land divided by a common political interest.
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: southern boy on October 27, 2004, 10:20:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on October 27, 2004, 10:31:00 PM
Oh Pahleeeez.
Doctors worry about malpractice because they've been trained in a system THAT MAKES PEOPLE SICK.
They don't know there ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to preventing illness. I wouldn't go to one unless I needed an arm sown back on.
They worry about malpractice because the annual death toll from synthetic prescription drugs ALONE, both from the correctly prescribed and the incorrectly prescribed, amounts to about 231,000 deaths every year. To put this into perspective, this is the equivalent of a world trade center disaster every week for over a year and a half or the crash of two fully loaded 747 aircraft every day of the year.
Forget the cases where they chop into little Bobby's knee, only to discover they don't know their right from their left. Or, remove both breasts on a woman and subject her to chemotherapy and radiation only to find out that she NEVER HAD CANCER to begin with.
Lavish lifestlyes and ignorant, unethical practices are why health care costs an arm and a leg. Lower doctors pay to minimum wage (or even average pay) and see how many of them would stay in the profession.
Post by: Deborah on October 28, 2004, 09:45:00 AM
http://www.infinitecat.com/rnc.html (http://www.infinitecat.com/rnc.html)
Post by: Polarbear on October 29, 2004, 12:04:00 AM
Doctors make people sick?
Or is it the system?
Because most people I know resort to the medical system AFTER they're sick. How can you fault doctors for failing to prevent illnesses WHEN PEOPLE COME TO THEM AFTER THEY'RE SICK?!
Doctors don't worry about malpractice because of deaths due to synthetic drugs unless they're responsible for over-prescribing them OR wrongly prescribing them. Faulty medication is not exactly their fault-even though they'll be sued for it anyway. Blame that on the "Deep Pockets" principle. That's why they are forced to pay for MILLIONS in insurance.
There are errors in the medical system, true. But for that figure you tossed out are there any numbers we can compare for SUCCESSFUL treatment? Because out of roughly 300 million people in the USA I can only assume there are many, many, many more successful cases every year. 747s full, scores of trade centers full, and whole hospital wards full.
For the few quacks out there, (and incompetent PAs, nurses, and administrators) I am sure lawsuits offer a suitable punishment. Losing your shirt in a lawsuit and being shamed in a profession that easily demands 4-8 years of professional schooling is a pretty good punishment to me.
But you were talking about "SYNTHETIC" drugs being prescribed, right? I take it there's a problem with the drugs being synthetic? Your numbers don't say anything about the associated problems with meds. How many patients overdosed themselves? How many were allergic to the meds? How many people got the wrong meds based on an incorrect diagnosis?
You know, something else doctors fear is being sued by idiots. Some people decide to sue doctors for things beyond their control or involvement. Seems to me there was a lawsuit against a doctor and the hospital for a baby being born deformed. That's beyond everyone's control. I've known some insane doctors in my time, but they were dedicated professionals for all their other strangeness.
I dunno-but if you ever have to get an arm sown on maybe you should go to a veterinarian or maybe a seamstress since you distrust doctors so much. It hardly seems fair to force you to get attention from a system full of people who don't know their asses from holes in the ground. You obviously deserve better.
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Deborah on October 29, 2004, 10:06:00 AM
What do I know about the medical industry?
That most of what doctors do does not ?cure? anything.
They have 0 training in nutrition and make little connection between diet and health.
The medical industry and pharmaceutical industry work hand in hand. A system designed for crisis management, not health.
In fact their ?treatments? often create further problems that require ?treatment?.
Antibiotics are overused, often as preventatives, and result in the need for further treatment.
Birth is medicalized and too often results in surgery, which subjects mom and infant to potential problems and costs 2 to 3 times more than a normal birth.
Here?s one example that happened recently in my family.
Mom was seeing a heart specialist. Did a stress test, all was good. Well, if all was good, why did he have her checking her blood pressure everyday and have her scheduled for another stress test in 6 months. I chalked it up to milking the insurance company, based on some idea that people at her age needed close observation.
Six months later, she suddenly has a blockage in a lower chamber of her heart. He urgently recommended that she schedule an angiogram to determine the extent of blockage. And told her to expect that an angioplasty (stints) may be necessary when they got in there.
I told her we were getting a second opinion. I was very angry that he hadn?t mentioned it on the first test. We could have been working on it for the previous 6 months. I did some research and discovered that cardiovascular disease can be reversed with diet and supplements. I put together a program for her based on Dr. Castelli?s information- heads the decades-long Framington study. I met with her DO who concured with me- that the heart doctor was over reacting. He approved the plan and added one more supplement that I didn?t have on the list. Three months later, after following the regime, the DO took a blood test and said, ?I?ve only seen one perfect blood test, and yours is the second best.?
Now, I don?t know how much you know about angioplasty, but the risk of dying during the procedure is good. One of my clients said he knew two people who?d died on the table while receiving this intervention. Stints are not a permanent solution, but must be replaced every 6-7 years. They do nothing to prevent plaque from forming again. They often fail/collapse and require surgery to repair. They also cost about $50,000. The program she?s on costs a very small fraction of that. And, if she had needed chelation- like dialysis to clean the arteries- that procedure is also a fraction of the cost at about $4,000.
I?m a bit concerned what her next test might reveal, as she?s been cheating of late. And, in the end she may choose to eat what she wants and have the invasive surgery. It?s her choice, but at least she will have made an informed choice. Something that most Americans know nothing about because their doctor is not going to advise them of their options.
We can speculate on why doctors aren?t trained in prevention of disease rather than crisis management; but one thing is obviously clear- health is not profitable. The machine needs sick people to fuel it. Once read that the economy was so dependent on cancer treatment that a ?cure? for cancer would crash the economy.
Which would you prefer? Risk of death and certainty of future surgery, or to reverse your heart disease with a change of diet, supplements, and exercise?
I think Western Medicine is at its best in trauma. When it comes to health- the prevention of illness- they know nada.
Dr Andrew Weil is leading the way with 'Complementary' medicine- bringing together the best of traditional combined with alternatives.
http://www.drweil.com/u/Home/ (http://www.drweil.com/u/Home/)
Post by: Polarbear on October 29, 2004, 04:30:00 PM
Diet? A doctor probably doesn't need to tell you to change your diet if you have bad cholesterol or blood pressure, does he? That should be on you, shouldn't it? Your diet lead to the problem to start with. Want to know what to eat? ASK. Ask a dietician.
As for the treatment-Yes, sometimes the cure is as bad as the disease. But is that the doctor's fault, too? In many cases there is no better answer. And if there's no scientific support for some miracle cure like eating pineneedles or all meat or whatever, why would a doctor countenance it? Prescribing faulty or unproven cures could get your hypothetical doctor sued, too.
As for Anti-biotics, yes, they are over-used. They have been for decades thanks to lazy patients, hypochondriacs, ignorant medics, and doctors trying to practics preventative treatment. Fact is, when someone ignores the rules on the bottle, they're creating a problem. When some idiot hands his meds to someone else, they're creating a problem. Demanding meds, as many do, is a problem. We over-used them for 50 years or more, and now we get the result. Bacteria that should have been eradicated were instead paired down to their hardiest survivors which survived to create tougher bacteria. And they trade information on antibiotics. 2 bacterial colonies can come into contact and trade resistance. Also, the failure of the medical system to quarantine the infected like they used to. TB is a serious threat these days thanks to the end of quarantine.
They've even found bacteria so tough they thrive in hospital disinfectant and scrub soap.
Not all doctors are the same quality or experience level. I can tell you that some of them are the greatest men and women in the world. They dedicate all their free time to their jobs. They do extensive research, stay ready to work all weekend long instead of relaxing. They miss their families to man the emergency room, expose themselves to your bodily fluids and other filth, (now that it is illegal to test for HIV without permission that could be deadly) and sacrafice their time and energy for operations that can extend far beyond quitting time.
You might have had a bad experience, but over all the medical system in the US is the best in the world. It rests on a long history of innovation and research that has accomplished amazing things. There are problems that plague the system. Bad doctors, greedy lawyers, governmental control and intrusion, cheap slickster HMOs, and so on. But I don't think you can blame them all for the mistakes and acts of a few. I've known a few doctors, and most of them are highly professional people who try their hardest to help.
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Deborah on October 29, 2004, 07:29:00 PM
Personal responsibility for individuals, and no responsibility for doctors or the AMA. Those folks who have the authority to limit my choices, to ban or make illegal products that I might choose to use- as I'm taking personal responsibility for my health. The same folks who advise moms to give their babes formula instead of breastmilk, setting them up for a host of medical problems. I could go on, but I'm bored.
Go to a dietician? You mean the people who put together the lame menus of dead food for hospitals and schools? I don't think so. They've been trained in the same school of thinking, and where the food industry dictates what constitutes proper nutrition.
You want to blame patients for the overuse of antibiotics? That's nuts. Two generations ago people had their babies at home, took care of most illnesses at home. The current generation has no knowledge of how care for anything and live in fear- because they were conditioned so by doctors and the AMA. They look to their doctor as a healer, not a crisis interventionist.
Post by: Polarbear on October 30, 2004, 09:12:00 PM
2 generations ago most of the equipment, medicine, vaccines, technology, training, and infrastructure that we rely on DIDN'T EXIST!
2 generations ago a great deal more people lived in the sticks than now.
2 generations ago medical care sure was done in the home. MOST HOSPITALS WEREN'T IN EXISTENCE THEN!!!
2 generations ago families sure did take care of their medical problems in the home-DOCTORS MADE HOUSECALLS!
2 generations ago people died of a great deal of illnesses that are easily cured with vaccinations!
2 generations ago families had lots of children to counterbalance the HIGH INFANT MORTALITY RATE!
(In 1951, the infant death rate was 28.4 per 1,000 live births; in 1998, it was 7.2. The infant mortality rate dropped 93 percent during 1917-1997)
2 generations ago POLIO was a killer!
2 generations ago Penicillin was still somewhat new- (it was only discovered in 1929.)
2 generations ago people probably had a better diet in many respects-almost none of the current brands of food and none of the fast food franchises existed.
2 generations ago plastic surgery was also a recent discovery, the electron microscope was not yet invented, DNA was not yet identified, Insulin was not yet synthesized, and the human genome wasn't even a term.
Enjoy-Polarbear
Post by: Deborah on October 31, 2004, 01:25:00 AM
What I want to say is that it makes me sad that traditional wisdom is being lost- the wisdom to take care of most health concerns at home. People are rendered completely dependent- don't even know how to care for minor things, like earache. Every little thing is a crisis requiring medical intervention. Further, due to excessive medical intervention, I've seen kids who will have a raging ear infection and NO FEVER = no defense system. What has interrupted their natural healing process?
For earache, I was treated with a baked onion, halved and stuck in a sock. Stopped the pain almost immediately and cured the earache overnight. Beats hell out of taking a weeks worth of antibiotics, which sets one up for the next infection.
Grandma was big on the Black Draught Tea cure. Old timers know the importance of being regular. Today doctors tell moms that it is 'normal' for their little ones to go 3-4 days with no movement. That blows my mind. While it is absolutely not 'normal', it is indeed 'common' due to the iron-fortified formula and cereal they consume; and what is common has come to be considered 'normal'.
It's very satisfying to me, to take responsibility for my health and to be comfortable with treating most things at home and without drugs, rx or otc. And I enjoyed teaching those things to my kids. I didn't want them to grow up dependent.
I absolutely adored Dr Mendolsohn [How to Raise a Healthy Child Inspite of Your Doctor and Confessions of a Medical Heretic]. http://www.whale.to/v/mendelsohn.html (http://www.whale.to/v/mendelsohn.html)
Very tradtional old fart who still prefered and recommended honey and lemon with a touch of whiskey, over drugs, for children's colds and flu.
Somewhere between my childhood (which was by no means intervention-free) and the birth of my first child, I guess I was exposed to enough propoganda that I was loosing trust in the 'sweat-out-the-fever' traditional treatment I was raised with- the 'hot toddy and two blankets' method. When my daughter had a fever, I was up half the night fretting that she might have some life-threatening illness, and was at the clinic when the door opened at 6am. Until I read Mendelsohn, and a few others.
I prefer the simpler, gentler approach vs the 'war on illness/disease', 'seek and destroy', militaristic nature of modern medicine. I find most of the treatment to be too harsh and unnecessarily invasive.
Sounds like the system works for you. I'm sure they will serve you well.
Post by: Tony Stark on October 31, 2004, 03:21:00 AM
Those who control the past, control the future; and those who control the present, control the past.
--George Orwell
Post by: Antigen on November 02, 2004, 06:23:00 PM
Quote
Post Gazette
One man from Squirrel Hill called the Post-Gazette this morning to report he had been called by a man trying to imitate former President Bill Clinton and urging him to vote, not today but tomorrow.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04307/405450.stm (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04307/405450.stm)
Nother guy, tired of replacing stolen Kerry/Edwards signs, used vassaline to thwart thieving members of the religious reich.
If you think yourself too wise to involve
yourself in government, you will be governed
by those too foolish to govern.
--Plato
Post by: Polarbear on November 04, 2004, 12:51:00 AM
Many of the old cures DO work. But you can't expect doctors to rely on them for 2 simple reasons.
First, they aren't taught in medical school. Proven science is taught in medical school. And that science is grounded in years of experiments and studies. Medical research calls for all sorts of ridiculously complex tests to prove the theory. Double-blind tests, placebos, control groups, control groups, control groups.
Second, the lawyers would have a field day if the cure didn't work. If a patient ate the onion instead of putting it in his ear, if they had too many coffee enemas, if they drank the shot of rum in boiling water instead of inhaling it, or if they took the smelling salts and put it on their 6 dollar burger from Carl's Jr. they would blame the doctor. The doctor has some protection from following established procedures and regimen that he doesn't have if he uses home cures.
A doctor is a scientist, trained in the scientific method, NOT home remedies. Until they're proven by the scientific method no doctor is likely to rely on them. That's just how they're taught. And no one wants a multi-million dollar suite or to be called before a board for professional mis-conduct.
There are a few advances every so often where old methods and ideas make the "cut," so to speak. I remember a doctor made news nation-wide years ago for using obsidian in the operating room because it was more reliable and sharper than steel. That's stepping back a few thousand years!
I hate the way the system has been twisted. If you want to know what's truly messed up in medicine, it is that doctors have been slowly turned from healers to this new PC term "pain managers." I don't blame the doctors for that, I blame the lawyers and bureaucrats that hijack the system for their own ends. That's why I'm such a defender of them in this. They're a common target, but they're not really the problem.
I say that home remedy stuff is on you-do it in your home, not at a doctor's office. Take some time and do your own research. That's only sensible if your health matters to you, anyway. I have a book by Hana Kroeger, an old German nurse. She teaches you how to clear up heavy metal poisoning using poppy seed poultices in pantyhose, how to detox your body with alternating hot and cold veggie/fruit juices, and other recipes. I have tons of similar items on my DO-IT-YOURSELF bookshelf. Everything from reloading to farming and so on. But that's MY responsibility, not the doctor's.
Ultimately, you sound like you share some similar ideas with me. I like being responsible for my own life, too. I don't like going to the medicos for anything. I'm interested in learning more about medical information, home farming and gardening, canning, cooking, solar power and other alternatives, old ways of doing things outside the net, etc. I get the Lehman's catalog and just drool over the stuff in there.
Enjoy-Polarbear[ This Message was edited by: Polarbear on 2004-11-03 21:52 ]