Larry, you're confusing quotas with affirmative action. There are some old line Dems who support quotas. Ted Kennedy may be one of them; I've never heard him on the subject. But, even Jesse Jackson and Al sharpton have pretty much disassociated themselves from quotas. That's Old Democrat thinking.
Affirmative action is something entirely different, and has nothing to do with quotas. However, one thing is absolutely certain, the Bush administration is firmly against affirmative action, even taking part in lawsuits to stop it.
I don't think it's worth trying to explain affirmative action; you probably wouldn;t believe me, anyway. Suffice to say that if you have never had much contact with folks who have are disadvantaged in various ways, you'll never understand the need for some form of affirmative action.
As for my hangup with Fox News, that should be obvious; even Bob_S knows what I'm talking about. For anyone who honestly believes that "Fair and Balanced" crap, there's no hope for them to understand the real world.
Bob, there have been left-leaning networks, but there has never been as blatantly biased a network as Fox News. There have been amusing left radicals, like James Carville (one of my favorite characters), Al Franken, Al Sharpton (who has a real wit) and so forth, but even Michael Moore could never be as venomous and hateful as Ann Coulter. There are no comparisons between the worst of the right and the worst of the left; the right are simpy dirty, rotten, selfish b--t--ds.
Which brings up one of my favorite topics. Everyone has heard how liberal the media is. Ignoring how badly the media treated Bill Clinton, let's accept that statement as being true. However, let's separate the media into serious and professional reporters on the one hand and entertainers and news readers on the other. I think you'll find that if there is a liberal bias, it rests within the serious and professional news hounds, and lets the entertainers like O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh carry the freight for the right.
Now, let's consider those liberal news reporters. By defintion, they are trained and experienced in being observers. For the most part, they strive to be objective reporters. But, because they're human, their personal bias sometimes becomes obvious. And, as accused, their personal bias is most often liberal. Now, why do you think that is? Is it because only fuzzy thinkers get into the business of news reporting in the first place? I doubt it. I believe that the reason is that trained and experienced observers begin to discern a difference, and begin to show a preference for the side that makes most sense. Therefore, it's obvious to me that the majority of the news media will be liberal.
The same is true of academics. Academia is largely accused of being liberal, as well. It can be reasonably argued that academia consists of the most thoroughly educated and deepest thinkers our society can produce. It follows that in the process of education, research and logic, that academics will gravitate to the side that makes the most sense. Therefore, it's obvious to me that the majority of academics will be liberal.
Business, by it's very nature, is designed to be self-serving and, some would say, even greedy. Certainly, their own profit is is most important motive they have. I know; I was a very small businessman for a number of years, and that's the way a businessman has to think if they are to be successul. Therefore, it's obvious to me that a businessman will be conservative.
The same is true of the rich. Regardless of whether they worked hard for it or were handed it on a silver platter, the basic instinct of the rich is to preserve what they have, and prevent anyone else from getting any of it. Therefore, it's obvious to me that the rich will be conservative.
The thing that gives me hope is that some business people, most often among the newer businesses like those in silicon valley, and some rich people, especially those with a tradition of public service, like the Kennedys, will be liberal despite the pressures of their positions to conserve what they have.
And, that brings us to the very roots of the words "conservative" and "liberal". One can reduce it to mayonnaise. If one is conservative, their sandwich will be dry and tasteless because they conserved the condiment. But, if one is liberal with the spread, the sandwich is juicy and zesty with taste. Take your pick.
Seriously, both parties do a damn good job of being disingenuous and I think it is reasonably fair to say that the Dems have the lead in this via manipulation of most of the press (FOX being the legitimate exception to that statement. Further Rush Limbaugh-type talk shows don't count as the press)
Not very good at vilinizing and lying and destroying other people. Surely you jest. Oh wait, you probably are serious, the Dems use their lapdog talking heads and their fork tongued advisors to do the real dirty work . . . it allows the actual politicians to have some level of distance from the verbal attacks.
