| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Erebus |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 09:26:24
I think this essay captures a lot about how middle America views the urban, Dem voters and (self-identified) elites.
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2004/12/13/news/opinion/opin522.txt
Alan Aker: The cultural ignorance of the left
By Alan Aker, Journal columnist; Rapid City Journal, South Dakota
PIEDMONT - True or false: The average resident of New York City, Boston, Washington, Los Angeles or San Francisco knows more about life in France than they do about life in South Dakota.
That question came to mind while listening to some of the establishment Democratic media discuss November's election results.
For just a little while, they noticed the rest of the country. I heard one correspondent joke that maybe they should send some foreign correspondents to the Midwest. Urban, blue state opinion is so uniformly liberal, it was hard for them to believe Bush could win. They didn't personally know many Bush supporters. They're seldom exposed to opposing points of view, and they never have to intellectually defend what they believe.
For them, every election like this is a reminder of how strange we red staters must be.
One reason is that, despite the homage the urban liberals pay to the idea of diversity, you have to live in rural, red state America to experience intellectual diversity.
We hear both sides of the story. On abortion, the environment, gay marriage, war, and taxes, we hear the liberal side from the national media, and we hear both sides in the local media and radio. Sure, we hear the liberal side twice, but at least we hear the conservative side once.
Another reason liberals never hear the other side is that they're such bullies. Intellectual bullies, that is. I'm sure Manhattan has conservatives, but they live in such an intolerant environment, they probably keep quiet.
Things like this are hard to quantify, but you can detect it in how liberals argue their political positions. Consider hate crimes laws. They criminalize thought. We can all agree that things like assault, murder, and theft should be illegal, but only an intellectual bully is interested in whether you had the correct thoughts about those you were murdering or assaulting.
Or consider sex education. Liberals oppose laws requiring abstinence education. These laws don't forbid schools from continuing on with the traditional "we know you're going to have sex, so here's a condom" philosophy, they merely require that schools also inform kids of the benefits of abstinence. Only intellectual bullies would feel so threatened by the idea of students hearing both points of view.
Another trademark of intellectual bullies is that they can't resist calling people names. They honestly think their opponents are evil or stupid. We're homophobes. Patriarchs. Greedy. Fundamentalist. Bigots. Gun-toters. White trash. Bible-thumpers. It's hard to listen to new ideas with these thoughts in your head.
This blue state bullying and biased media go a long way explaining how little they understand about us red staters, but it goes deeper than that.
I have a childhood friend who moved to a very urban part of a very blue state, and we made a game of blue state ignorance about life here. When he'd call, I'd ask things like, "Did they believe the story about the renegade buffalo herd that destroyed the clothesline?" They bought it. Did they believe the story about how local employers require their workers to attend church? Totally.
These city folk are victims of a new cultural hegemony in America. Whenever we turn on the TV or watch a movie, we learn all about life in their little corners of the world. They seldom get a glimpse at us.
I tried to think of current TV sitcoms or recent movies which tell our story. There aren't many. The closest I came was "Northern Exposure," a '90s show about a New York medical school graduate forced to practice in a small town in Alaska. But I ruled that one out. It was about a New Yorker. And towards the end, the story line was hijacked by two gay men who moved to town to operate a bed-and-breakfast and an environmental wacko who lived in an air-tight dome and claimed he could sense releases of toxic gasses thousands of miles away.
Those plots are really about Hollywood life, not ours. Almost every episode of "Northern Exposure" featured footage of a logging truck chugging down Main Street. Logging seemed to be the main industry in that town. I awaited plot lines involving loggers and millworkers. None.
I think the TV series "Roseanne" was set in a red state, hence the blue staters' belief that we're mostly fat, poor, and stupid. It's very hard to think of a recent movie or TV show which sympathetically portrays our lives. "The Waltons," "The Andy Griffith Show," and "Petticoat Junction" were set in red states, but they're all set in the past. A few movies, like "A Walk to Remember," are sympathetic portrayals of contemporary rural American life, but they're the exceptions that prove the rule. If you want to see a small-town southern preacher who is wise and compassionate, watch this movie. You won't see it again soon.
But every election day, our stories and our values count just as much as those in blue states. And for just a little while, they notice us.
Alan Aker is a Piedmont businessman and former state lawmaker. Write to alan@akerwoods.com.
|
| 28 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cvanepps |
Posted - 12/16/2004 : 09:26:34
quote:
Originally posted by Newo
Tre´s captured it nicely, and with a minimum of words too. Come on guys, you´re smarter than this left/right bigcity/simplefolk nonsense, I can actually hear the Pavlovian on/off everything´s-got-to-be-one-thing-or-the-other circuits in your brains popping and hissing. There are more than two sides to an argument.
Newo, I was just about to post a similar sentiment.
Any thinking person does not automatically toe the conservative or liberal line and agree with all it's associated tenets. I have issues I tend to treat conservatively as well as liberally. In a few cases, it's a little of both; but there's the rub. Complex issues call for complex solutions and complexity is not our strong suit in this day and age of the 6:00 O'Clock News soundbyte.
To be fair, I see Mr. Aker's article as initially thought-provoking but ultimately finger-pointing. In many spots, it makes the very mistake it chastizes others for making: name-calling, closed-minded, and prejudice.
I was pretty depressed when Bush was re-elected. Only because of the way he's performed as President, not because we disagree about religion.
[in case Bush is reading this] Believe in God all you like, Mr. President, you aren't the first powerful person in history to be pious, nor the last. That doesn't offend me one bit. But please don't make that belief the centerpiece of the administration of a global superpower. Faith is not a great basis for making decisions. Facts are better. If more of your critical decisions were based on fact, then you would have performed better as a president.
Note that I have not called anyone any names, or maligned them in any way. You may inquire about which of Bush's decisions have been based on faith instead of facts, and I'll be more than happy to list them out for you.
-= It's not easy to kidnap a fat man =-
http://www.cvanepps.com |
| Newo |
Posted - 12/16/2004 : 08:59:40
Tre´s captured it nicely, and with a minimum of words too. Come on guys, you´re smarter than this left/right bigcity/simplefolk nonsense, I can actually hear the Pavlovian on/off everything´s-got-to-be-one-thing-or-the-other circuits in your brains popping and hissing. There are more than two sides to an argument.
--
Maze rats dreamed of mazes, according to the latest studies. Maze rat scientists dreamed of rats. I was dreaming of cheese. |
| BLT |
Posted - 12/16/2004 : 08:35:39
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I think the core of the divide is mostly big city vs. everybody else, with lots of caveats and qualifications.
And, generally speaking, neither side is willing to admit any responsibility for the current state of things. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 12/16/2004 : 08:18:33
I think the core of the divide is mostly big city vs. everybody else, with lots of caveats and qualifications. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 12/15/2004 : 20:14:07
quote:
Another trademark of intellectual bullies is that they can't resist calling people names.
Yes, it's hypocrisy summed up in one sentence, ladies and gentlemen! Or is "bully" not a name?
There were some good points made in the article, but the author is much too quick to pin the problems on The Other Side. Sure, a lot of blue-staters aren't really aware of what the people in the red states are like. But isn't the reverse also true? I don't know about other blue-state Democrats, but, if what Mr. Aker says is accurate, I resent the fact that I'm being represented to Middle America by newscasters and sitcom characters. For that matter, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people aren't all that familiar with others who are allegedly ON THE SAME SIDE. Pennsylvania and California might both be blue states, but that doesn't mean I can wrap my head around how a state that's supposed to be highly Democratic can "recall" their Governor with no precedent and no real reason, and then elect ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. I mean, what's UP with that? But the Kindgergarten Cop aside, I think most people live in their own cultural and intellectual bubbles (horrible metaphor, but you get the idea), to some extent. That isn't limited to "The Left" or "The Right."
I'm not sure I buy the whole Great Red-State/Blue-State Divide thing, either. If it DOES exist, it's probably largely because the media are constantly telling us that it exists. Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sure, there are some fundamental differences between people, and these differences are probably going to be all that greater when your country is really friggin' big. But should it really be narrowed down to such a cut-and-dry, us-vs.-them kind of view? I mean, it ultimately all comes down to individuals, not homogeneous groups, right? I do tend to associate homogeneity and blind following with the right wing, especially with all the "You should stand behind the President no matter what!" garbage that's been going around as of late. But I know that not all Republicans buy that, either, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some self-proclaimed left-wingers who DO buy it.
I have some more to say, but it'll have to wait.
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
| darwin |
Posted - 12/15/2004 : 00:37:39
Here's an example of the fundamentalists going after evolution.
From http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=1456 (I don't actually know anything about this site, but the guy writes for Skeptical Inquirer and other publications)
The Discovery Institute wants the Dover Area School District to back down, and I don't blame them. I've now seen the legal complaint filed by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State in this case. It contains passages like this:
...In a public meeting of the defendant Dover Area School Board on June 7, 2004, School Board member William Buckingham, Chair of the Board's Curriculum Committee, criticized the textbook Biology because it is "laced with Darwinism," and advocated the purchase of a biology book that includes theories of creation as part of the text. At that meeting Mr. Buckingham said that as part of the search for a new biology book, he and others were looking for one that offers balance between the biblical view of creation and Darwin's theory of evolution. He also said there need not be any consideration for the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or other competing faiths and views. "This country wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution," he said. "This country was founded on Christianity and our students shold be taught as such."
At a public meeting of the Dover School Board on June 14, 2004, in further discussion of the new biology book, Mr. Buckingham stated, "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?" He also stated that "[n]owhere in the Constitution does it call for a separation of church and state." |
| Jose Jones |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 19:24:32
i'd just like to thank everyone for this great conversation. seriously, if all lefties and righties were this civil, we could probably get a lot done. a breath of fresh air, this thread is.
sorry that i don't have anything to actually add to this. just had to say thanks.
-dan
-----------------------
they were the heroes of old, men of renown. |
| mun chien andalusia |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 15:36:44
i agree that the left tends to intellectual bullism, at least in europe. fanatical lefties are so patronising and they seem always surprised when people vote for the exact opposite of what they think as "logical" (see the berlusconi case). i've heard too many times that who votes right is either an ignorant or a greedy bastard, not to mention absurd situations were i was accused of being an ignorant nazi because a) i study medicine and not art or philosophy b)i dared to say that almodovar's last film sucked big time(i was accused as a homophobic too in that case) c) i dared to say that it was time to put some new music, in the uni radio station instead of having people reading albanian poetry in original language all the time (i was racist and intollerant in that case).
i could mention thousands of similar examples so i'm convinced that it's not a coincidence. the left feel that they are culturally and intelectually superior pretty much as the right are obsessed with let's say illegal immigration and crime rates. i am a convinced liberal but i feel that whatever contribution a liberal point of view can offer is lost in the fanatism with which is forcefed to those who can't decide or those who already have decided the opposite.
take the example of gay marriage. tho' i totally agree with gay couples having the same rights as the etero ones i can't see why using the word "marriage" which is traditionally a religious thing. since the church cannot accept to celebrate gay marriage as it is in its right to do, i don't see why the state cannot respect the will of practicing catholics by defining it a union or whatever. typical left absurdity:loosing the point over a semantic debate on "equality" and "rights".
said that, the thing that preoccupies me the most is that the westworld is leading towards a dictatorship of the magiority which is not what democracy is about. both sides are too radical to listen to each other and as a result when they gain the magiority of votes they opress the "looser". i'd like every once in a while to hear a liberal say that a conservative was right or the contrary. i'm stuff of people who vote a party just like they support a football team.
 join the cult of errol\and you can have a beer\without having to quit smoking
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 14:37:28
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Speaking loosely, I see religious values as products of evolution, and therefore embodying inductively derived "truths", at least behaviorially speaking, about the human condition. There is a tough, closeminded "realism" about fundamentalist values, in the sense that they have worked well within reality/actuality, at least so far. Opposed to that you have the "idealism" of the left which, for all its merit in regard to intent, seems fatally divorced from evolutionary constraints.
To me the big issue is evolution does not show foresight, as you know. It will drive a species (if unchecked) to consume its resources until there are no longer enough resources to support the species. So by your argument the fundamentalist might follow a strategy of comsumption and reproduction that makes evolutionary sense when there is plentiful resources. But, those resources are going to become scarce. The left meanwhile is preaching constraint that you view as naive because it conflicts with selection for higher individual fitness. But, what you are advocating (previously) is that the train should be left to barrel down the tracks because in the past that has been what the train does best. And just because evolution doesn't show foresight doesn't mean that we shouldn't use our ability to see what's coming down the tracks.
There are scenarios in which individuals that do constrain their consumption or reproduction do better (have higher fitness) than individuals consume and reproduce without constraint. Usually it requires that those who do constrain themselves control their resources (keeps the "fundamentalists" out) or somehow survive the crash better than the "fundamentalists".
Well put. The leftist strain that advocates constraint sounds good, if perhaps, and only perhaps, naive. The leftist strain that advocates universal altruism and broad tolerance would seem to be in conflict with that, at least unless the two strains operate with rather deft cooperation. The left would seem to want to walk a prohibitively fine line, whereas the right sometimes talks with a hammer. Frustrating. |
| n/a |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 14:27:57
Sorry erebus, I really hope that didn't come off as patronising in any way. I sometimes feel I have to point out when I'm joking, not just with you, I'm quite painfully aware of my lack of ability to express myself properly at times.
And Darwin, I find the idea of intelligent design very amusing, if there was a designing force behind me they must have been stoned at the time of tre creation.
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| Erebus |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 13:34:09
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
But are articles like that making the 'divide' larger rather than just defining it? Is it really as intense as that? I ask this because I don't know. Like I say I read that and saw a lot of them and us comparatives, is it really as serious as that?
I posted that reply to darwin and then saw what you and he said. Yes, Tre, I usually know when you're kidding, and darwin is right to tweak me.
I think the divide is pretty intense, though I see that article as describing it rather then fostering it. But it does seem to be pretty serious, which is puzzling. Each side blames the other for it. Of course I blame the crusading left, which I've probably already said too much about, and I guess the left blames the neanderthal right. |
| darwin |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 13:33:49
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Speaking loosely, I see religious values as products of evolution, and therefore embodying inductively derived "truths", at least behaviorially speaking, about the human condition. There is a tough, closeminded "realism" about fundamentalist values, in the sense that they have worked well within reality/actuality, at least so far. Opposed to that you have the "idealism" of the left which, for all its merit in regard to intent, seems fatally divorced from evolutionary constraints.
To me the big issue is evolution does not show foresight, as you know. It will drive a species (if unchecked) to consume its resources until there are no longer enough resources to support the species. So by your argument the fundamentalist might follow a strategy of comsumption and reproduction that makes evolutionary sense when there is plentiful resources. But, those resources are going to become scarce. The left meanwhile is preaching constraint that you view as naive because it conflicts with selection for higher individual fitness. But, what you are advocating (previously) is that the train should be left to barrel down the tracks because in the past that has been what the train does best. And just because evolution doesn't show foresight doesn't mean that we shouldn't use our ability to see what's coming down the tracks.
There are scenarios in which individuals that do constrain their consumption or reproduction do better (have higher fitness) than individuals consume and reproduce without constraint. Usually it requires that those who do constrain themselves control their resources (keeps the "fundamentalists" out) or somehow survive the crash better than the "fundamentalists". |
| Broken Face |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 13:24:41
you'd hate talking to me then, as i am both a "leftie" if that means liberal and a "hardcore Christian" if that means someone who ascribes to a Christ based-faith system and believes strongly in it - my difference is that i don't push it on people who want nothing to do with it
-B-B-B-Brian
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 13:17:15
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
darwin, this piece was “stupid”? The guy’s point is that the Repubs know the Dems better than vice versa. He says the Dems cram their culture down Repub throats, all the while disdaining Repub opinions as primitive and unclean, out of some self-proclaimed higher moral purpose that is hardly ever called into question. The left is on a holy crusade and is out to impose its ends and means on everybody else. Can you say that of the Christian right?
I thought I had editted my posting to say "silly". Not much of a difference I guess.
Is that joke? Does the right try to impose its beliefs on others? Yes, in every way (creation, abortion, family values)! Are you really serious with that question? The only difference is that the Christian right thinks the left are sinners damned to hell.
How do you reconcile that you're now so deeply linked with the Christian right? How do you feel about "intellegent design" being taught in science classes?
I agree that the right is all wrong about trying to impose on school curricula, but I don't see their public speech advocacy as being imposition. If they want to make their arguments, fine, so long as it's not to captive audiences. Abortion is sticky, for I can see how some would object to it as murder. So, yes, the right does militate for ends and means. "Intelligent design" does bug the hell out of me. I think it would fair to accuse me of operating from separate sets or levels of ideas. On the one hand I would like for human beings to aspire to truth and understanding, but on the other I see biological imperatives as being more fundamental. For example, knowing the truth about life may conflict with living it. Not seeing oneself as a product of evolution may actually make it easier to pass on one's DNA. However, while that may be true for the beasts, and may once have been true for humans, one could argue that it is just such ignorance that has gotten us into this overpopulated ecological mess. Anyway, I'm conflicted between viewing fundamentalists as superior survival machines and seeing them as benighted sheep, whatever survival benefit their simpleness may bestow.
However, in contrast to whatever the right may be guilty of, we nonetheless definitely do have a social welfare left that has won most of the legislative war, dictating a huge portion of governmental budgets, with all the forced taxation and ACTUAL moral imperialism involved. That's what gets me going. The left forces me to act as though I actually endorse their conception of the moral order.
Though I find it much easier to converse with a leftie than with a hardcore Christian, I don't find it that difficult to reconcile my "alliance", if you will, with them. Speaking loosely, I see religious values as products of evolution, and therefore embodying inductively derived "truths", at least behaviorially speaking, about the human condition. There is a tough, closeminded "realism" about fundamentalist values, in the sense that they have worked well within reality/actuality, at least so far. Opposed to that you have the "idealism" of the left which, for all its merit in regard to intent, seems fatally divorced from evolutionary constraints. The right strikes me as seeing human nature as set or fixed, to which they would then adopt a posture of malleable response, whereas the left sees human nature as malleable, so that it can be shaped toward a relatively fixed, idealized goal, such as a world of peace and tolerance. I find this naive. |
| n/a |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 12:59:54
I put £10 on him pulling a 'teaching balance' argument
[edit] just in case erebus you know I'm messing with you, it's a friendly thing
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| darwin |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 12:55:59
Intelligent design is what creationist now call the creation story. They think it makes it sound scientific. The basic idea being that something so perfect and complex (like yourself) couldn't evolve by chance (ignoring that evolution isn't driven by chance) and thus there has to be an intelligent designer behind it all. It's Paley's old idea.
I like to tweak Erebus on this subject, because I know he's a strong believer in evolution, but yet a right-winger. |
| n/a |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 12:39:08
But are articles like that making the 'divide' larger rather than just defining it? Is it really as intense as that? I ask this because I don't know. Like I say I read that and saw a lot of them and us comparatives, is it really as serious as that?
[edit] what is intelligent design sorry?
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| darwin |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 12:37:30
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
darwin, this piece was “stupid”? The guy’s point is that the Repubs know the Dems better than vice versa. He says the Dems cram their culture down Repub throats, all the while disdaining Repub opinions as primitive and unclean, out of some self-proclaimed higher moral purpose that is hardly ever called into question. The left is on a holy crusade and is out to impose its ends and means on everybody else. Can you say that of the Christian right?
I thought I had editted my posting to say "silly". Not much of a difference I guess.
Is that joke? Does the right try to impose its beliefs on others? Yes, in every way (creation, abortion, family values)! Are you really serious with that question? The only difference is that the Christian right thinks the left are sinners damned to hell.
How do you reconcile that you're now so deeply linked with the Christian right? How do you feel about "intellegent design" being taught in science classes? |
| Erebus |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 12:18:59
And to think I actually saw this editorial as noncontroversial, to the point of posting it simply to start a conversation on the cultural divide. Must say I think this kind of essay in no way increases the divide, but instead identifies an actual condition which many in the blue states would deny, as is perhaps demonstrated in the replies.
For starters, I don’t think anybody who has replied has actually addressed what I take to be the underlying broader validity of the guy’s point. Broken Face is right about corporate ownership of big media, and I admit that big media in no way serves as a mouthpiece for the true, socialist left. However, even if one does see media as a tool of power, big media must still be seen as consistently coming down in favor of the Dems against the Repubs, at least in my eye. And Broken Face is also right to note that he and other liberals do personally know conservatives. But given that less than 15% of San Francisco and less than 10% of Berkeley voted for Bush, and that it is well known that conservatives in both those cities feared sporting Bush-Cheney bumper stickers, it could not be clearer that true debate is stifled, resulting in relative public ignorance of conservative positions. Sure, the folks here are better informed about things in general, but the average red stater surely knows much more about the left than vice versa. Can’t agree that this constitutes “conservative propaganda”, if only because the gist of the guy’s position rings true to me.
COF, I’ve been called fascist, racist, and Nazi too many times to dismiss intellectual bullying as “ludicrus”. Start an honest discussion on illegal immigration and soon find yourself defending yourself against charges of racism. I’ve been there many times, and it does have the effect of silencing me. I also recall being chastised in high school for my unconventional views regarding human nature, by liberal teachers who were in no way intellectually capable of understanding my arguments. And, no, I don’t think I see the hypocrisy you see by equating “making thought illegal” with a requirement for teaching about abstinence. Aker is right that abstinence should be mentioned as an option in sex-ed classes, and that it should be required if only because the deep bias that exists within the teaching profession prevents a full discussion of such things. His call for requirement derives from a justified concern that that is the only way such things will, in general, be mentioned by teachers. (I think schools have no business teaching sex-ed under any circumstances, for what that’s worth.) Conversely, defining hate crimes does have the effect of “making thought illegal”, which is simply wrong, and there’s no way around that. So, I don’t see the hypocrisy. It’s apples and oranges to me. If anything, it’s the Dems forcing the issue in both cases, with hate crimes as an attempt to control thought, and again attempting to control thought by systematically omitting discussion of abstinence as an option. Yes, people do have sex, but abstinence still remains an option, especially for some young people.
Regarding the “homophobes”, the bullying might be seen the other way around. Many red-staters see themselves as being bullied into acquiescing to alien values. The term “marriage” is already defined, so I can see that being offensive. Equal rights should be the norm. I see the state has having gone wrong by legally acknowledging marriage in the first place. Such unions, straight or gay, should be strictly private affairs, period. And the state has no business telling private individuals or companies what their moral obligations are toward their fellow citizens, short of refraining from harm to person or property.
darwin, this piece was “stupid”? The guy’s point is that the Repubs know the Dems better than vice versa. He says the Dems cram their culture down Repub throats, all the while disdaining Repub opinions as primitive and unclean, out of some self-proclaimed higher moral purpose that is hardly ever called into question. The left is on a holy crusade and is out to impose its ends and means on everybody else. Can you say that of the Christian right?
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 11:35:58
;-)
 I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| Broken Face |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 11:33:32
Thanks Kathryn!
-B-B-B-Brian
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 10:44:25
Brian, I love your knack for words. First, your stellar reviews of the two shows you've seen so far, now this. I couldn't have said it any better myself than you do above.
A "former state lawmaker" indeed!
I still believe in the excellent joy of the Frank |
| darwin |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 10:24:30
I'm going to ignore the stupid article and focus on the trivial.
Red State shows off the top of my head:
CSI
CSI: Miami
Las Vegas
Mork and Mindy
Dallas (was largely a Democratic state back then)
Picket Fences
BJ & the Bear (always seemed like they were in Nevada or Wyoming)
and of course, Sheriff Lobo
How many blue state shows aren't LA or NYC?
|
| n/a |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 09:43:09
yeah, all I read in that was 'them vs us' and 'us vs them'
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 09:40:10
And yes, I agree with Brian. This is divise drivel meant to further develop this growing chasm.
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
| dayanara |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 09:40:04
"Roseanne" was set in Illinois, which was *cough* a blue state.
If you really want to know, look in the Frank |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 09:39:07
This is so obviously and sadly tripe, Erebus, come on.
The idea of an intellectual bully is ludicrus, particularly coming from a one-sided journalist who has no interest in seeing the motivation on the other side. He whines about laws against hate crimes because they "make thought illegal" and then champions, at the same time, laws "requiring schools to teach about abstinence". The only logical reason the 'blue states' could be against this is because they're terrified of opposing views. Everyone should and must have sex. I'm sure all the blues believe that. The obvious solution, were this the case, would be to enact a law prohibiting abstinence as part of the curriculum, not allowing the schools to choose what they're teaching.
I mean, you do see the hypocrisy of this guy, don't you?
Then he's on to them calling people names as he continues his diatribe on the small minded democrats.
Incidentally, homophobes doesn't seem that far off for a group that strongly feels it has the right to deny gays the right to marry (as opposed to letting them <gasp> manage their own lives) because it might 'destroy the traditional family'. Perhaps the term intellectual doesn't apply, but certainly bully does. The hypocrisy continues.
About the only thing I will agree with is a growing chasm between urban and rural societies, which is patently ridiculous and utterly inexcusable on both sides.
"Join the Cult of Frank 2.0 / And you'll be enlightened (free for 1.x members)" |
| Broken Face |
Posted - 12/14/2004 : 09:35:20
this is such bullshit - i've lived in "blue states" all my life and i know plenty of conservatives (my father is an arch-one) and i know a lot about red states having visited them and having friends from them. this is typical conservative propaganda - keeping the facts totally hidden and playing on stereotypes. fuck you alan aker. do not reduce me nor the millions like me to "intellectual bullies" or play on the totally incorrect idea of the liberal media (look at who owns the "big 3" american networks - disney, ge and viacom - they speak for themselves). this country is full of smart liberals and smart conservatives and stupid liberals and stupid conservatives. only the later categories would engage in such a purely partisan, stereotypical, and divisive technique such as claiming that we coasters know nothing about the heartland.
-B-B-B-Brian
|
|
|
