On Fri, 24 May 2013, Tim Josling <tim.josling@gmail.com> wrote:
previous discussion that you refer to
I was not aware of the link previously supplied as I was reading through the daily collections. Sorry about that. The study supplied looks weak to me but it is not "no evidence".
The more right-wing members of this list made claims such as "ABC look like green left propaganda machine", the article in question was good for refuting that claim. If there is any evidence of some parts of the ABC appear to have any sort of right-wing bias then it refutes the claim that the ABC is totally biased towards left-wing politics.
An ABC employee once explained to me that the ABC had to have a left wing bias, to balance the right wing bias of the commercial media, a view I have some sympathy with. I remember one election night watching the ABC, and one ABC commentater stated "I think **we**'re going to win that seat", meaning the ALP was going to win it.
Who was the commentator and what was their position? Were the supposed to be offering journalistic commentary or personal opinion?
No-one seemed to notice this. Yes this is anecdotal but having spent a lot of time listening to the ABC I find it amazing that someone could conclude they are biased to the 'right'.
These things are subjective to some degree. Modern politics are a long way from the French assembly where the terms "right" and "left" in politics were first invented. http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/the-boys-who-cried-fox/ The above URL (which I previously cited) shows an allegation that Fox News was biased towards moderate candidates.
I stand by my view that the left/right wing dichotomy is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness. If your views can be characterised in that way then you may be a hedgehog*.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ There are other models, the Political Compass is one.
"When someone specifically states that they don't want women's and
children's hospitals because they won't personally use them then it is a clear example of being heartless."
I gather you agree this is an ad hominem attack, though you claim it is justified.
An ad-hominem attack would be to say "because he is heartless his arguments lack merit", that's not my position at all. I believe that the government should concern itself with the welfare of all citizens. Being heartless is not a desirable trait for a politician or a philosophy. Note that pretending to care is OK for a politician as long as that pretense includes legislative activity.
It might be worth reading up on some libertarians. They are not all pitiless Ayyn Rand clones who want the poor to starve in squalor. This might be a good start http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/r ef=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369374523&sr=1-4 .
If they aren't all Randians who want the poor to live in squalor then why does the blurb for the book you cite suggest that the US government have no provision for social security? -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/