Friday, June 22, 2007

Bigots

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.

6 comments:

Michael van der Galiën said...

LMAO!

WE are good, compassionate, friendly, warm, thoughtful, THEY are cold, murderers, extremists, xenonphobes.

Yeah, sounds like a very thoughtful organization indeed.

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

I also loved how they equate their ideological vision with being "pragmatic." It was as if some intern was just opening to random pages in the dictionary.

Tully said...

It helps to know some of the background of CAP. They're a Clinton-crowd creation, funded up by the Soros crowd. Specifically, a John Podesta creation.

The "Free Press" people the "co-wrote" their so-called "study" with are for MORE Democratic media. I'm still trying to figure out how the media can be "more Democratic," and the best I can come up with is "more subject to government control."

If you read through the so-called "study" and take the charts in order, it reads that CONSERVATIVE WHITE MEN own most of the talk-radio market, oppressing the FEMALE AND MINORITY PROGRESSIVE owners by, well, winning in the marketplace. Clearly this cannot be tolerated, and quota legislation is required!

No word on the dangers of "progressive" white males in the market. And I also note they dredge very deep indeed to list out "conservative" radio hosts, some of whom aren't really all that conservative, while not listing some decidedly liberal ones--such as Keith Olbermann's radio time.

My admittedly quick review suggests that a "conservative" in their definition is anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with their particular "progressive" agenda. And they never mention any of the past cross-ownership and sponsorships between CAP people and Air America. Not once.

Hit job for the idiots who can't really read a study.

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

Tully,

Yeah I noticed some of their, shall we say, methodologically challenged moments. The thing is who is going to be able to look at this study and be able to validate ANYTHING outside of the market they live in? They can't, so they have to either take them at their word, and given their "reason for being" how can anyone in good conscience do that?

I did notice that for St. Louis they have KMOX listed as having no liberal content of any sort. Such a claim is a whole new level of stupid.

Tully said...

methodologically challenged :-) I like!

As near as I could tell--and this is a guess, and only a guess, since I've not throughly reviewed yet--this "study" was written expressly for Air America. Because as near as I can tell, the only "liberal" content they can seem to find is Air America programming.

PS--had a drink with the "other" RH a few weeks back, and he confirmed he isn't you. ;-)

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

As near as I could tell--and this is a guess, and only a guess, since I've not throughly reviewed yet--this "study" was written expressly for Air America. Because as near as I can tell, the only "liberal" content they can seem to find is Air America programming.

Well, you know why that is? It is because only Air America is considered "officially sanctioned". You know, like Pravda.

:-)