I've found one can learn much about an organization by looking at their "About Us" page, although usually what you learn isn't what they thought they were telling you when they put the page up in the first place. A classic case in point is the Center For American Progress, a liberal think tank in the news for attacking profitable...um, I mean "right wing" talk radio.
Anyway, here is their "Who We Are" section:
The Center for American Progress is a progressive think-tank dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through ideas and action.
We are creating a long-term, progressive vision for America—a vision that policy makers, thought-leaders and activists can use to shape the national debate and pass laws that make a difference.
I'll admit this doesn't prove much except they are vacuous. "Yay! We are for ideas! And for laws we like! Hooray!"
Here they tell us how they work:
1) We explore the issues that matter most. We learn everything we can about the vital issues facing America and the world through dialogue with leaders, thinkers and citizens.
2) We develop bold new ideas. We debate. We develop a point of view. Then we take a stand.
3) We shape the national debate. We share our point of view—online, on campus, in the media, on the shop floor and in the boardroom, with Congress and in statehouses—with everyone who can put our ideas into practice and affect positive change.
Let's see how they add to the "debate" shall we? Luckily they have put together a graphic to show us exactly what they have in mind:
So see, if you are not one of them you are selfish, naive, xenophobic, and, well, basically Hitler without the mustache. Alright, the Hitler part isn't in the graphic, but you get the idea.
All I can say is...yeah, sure. That'll make the "debate" fabulous.
Actually, the folks at The Center For American Progress are nothing other than your garden variety prejudiced bigots. The reason they want to shut down right wing radio is because fundamentally they do not believe another side ought to be allowed, as I think their graphic makes abundantly clear. If you disagree with them you are morally reprehensible. They already know they have the better answers to every questions because they have axiomatically defined it as being so. To allow dissent of any sort would be to give in to narrow minded xenophobes.
And, of course, it is the other side that is arrogant.
How anyone would give credence to the work of such people is beyond me.
You can read other interesting posts on this topic at Stubborn Facts and at MvdG.