Tag Archive for bias

I won’t vote for a bigot

Tom HillAfter the Democratic primary, I posted that I believed we had made a mistake nominating Tom Hill for Congress in the 11th District of NC.

I still believe that to be true.

Tom has accused me of being a one-issue voter and a one-issue blogger because I won’t vote for anyone who opposes marriage equality. I wouldn’t vote for a racist, either, and I am NOT accusing Tom of being a racist.

Tom is an accomplished man, but he stands on the wrong side of an issue that is very important to me, even though he is on the right side of many other issues.

His comments in response to my blog post show me that he is just plain wrong for the job. Instead of trying to open a conversation, he immediately assumed I am a one-issue voter. He could have read previous posts. He could have read subsequent posts. Instead, he chose to label me based on his own prejudices. He chose to lump me in with racists and insist I don’t care about other issues. He chose not to listen to my response. These are not the traits I want in someone I would choose to represent my interests.

I am convinced that he is wrong for the job. I will write in someone’s name rather than give him my vote. Just look at the comments below:

“WE” did not make a mistake by choosing Tom Hill in the 2014 primary. You and other one issue people did all that you could to defeat my open and honest campaign based on closing off-shore tax shelters, ending the Mid-East wars, reforming immigration with a pathway to citizenship, protecting Social Security and Medicare, supporting women’s and veterans’ rights. cleaning up the environmental messes, rebuilding the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, and other meritorious Democratic goals. And you did so by supporting a candidate who never once stated his position on any of these issues. But what really frosts me is your intolerance for people whose values may disagree with your own. Whether or not my district endures another two years or more of Mark Meadows will depend in part on whether one issue people like yourself are able to demonstrate some maturity. BTW, you have the option of running for office yourself rather than sitting on your butt and finding fault with those who do. I do not see your personal identifier anywhere.

TOM HILL

  • Tom, my sister was a lesbian who endured the hatred of people who didn’t know her. She and her spouse deserved the same rights my husband and I enjoy. As for one-issue, I am NOT. If you knew me at all, you would know my biggest issue is health care. But I have a great deal of trouble voting for anyone who would deny basic human rights to people based on a religious prejudice.

    Leslie

  1. Leslie,

    Despite your denial, your response proves that you are a one-issue blogger. You deny the truth, just like the Obama haters deny that they are racists. You did not address a single matter that I raised, and I will not trade quips with you on the only issue that truly concerns you. BTW, we all have gays in our families. Some of us just have different opinions about the meaning of marriage, irrespective of religion.

    Tom

    • My son died because he was denied care. A birth defect — a pre-existing condition — prevented him from getting insurance and he was denied care and died. To call me a single-issue blogger again proves that you are responding with a knee-jerk reaction — another bad quality for a politician. Did you look at previous posts on this blog? I am a multi-issue voter, and basic civil rights is important to me. You have shown yourself to be a religious bigot. You have shown yourself to be overly sensitive to people who disagree with your bigotry against an entire class of people. I agree with most of your stands on the issues, but you do not have the personal traits necessary to hold high office and I am deeply offended by your insistence that I only care about one issue, even when I have shown myself to be a mullti-issue voter, You look no deeper than the surface, see what you want to see and let your bias run wild. You will not get my vote. Oh, and these comments are public.

      Leslie

Remember when journalists could be trusted?

I grew up the daughter of a hard-nosed newspaper reporter who valued the truth above all. He could cover an issue he felt passionately about and leave his own feelings at the door. He had integrity.

I remember when Walter Cronkite was the nation’s most trusted man. He reported the news and nothing more, until he saw what a travesty the Vietnam War had become and felt compelled to speak out. I was disappointed, even though I agreed with him.

Opinion is why newspapers have editorial pages, and that is where opinion used to be confined.

But in recent years, opinion has crept more and more into the news, with Fox leading the way and MSNBC answering. That wouldn’t be such a problem if people got their news from more than one source. As much as I like Rachel Maddow, she is not my only source of information.

Even the New York Times can’t be trusted anymore. Remember its role as a cheerleader in the run-up to the Iraq War?

There is precious little left of the unbiased media. Someone cited liberal bias to me because a survey of Washington, DC, journalists done in 1992 showed more of them voted for Bill Clinton that the elder George Bush.

First of all, we don’t use 20-year-old data. Second, you can hold your personal opinions and still be fair.

I have covered issues like abortion and been called fair by both sides.

However, the media does make one huge mistake these days, and that is validating information that is just plain wrong by tring to tell both “sides” of a story.

You wouldn’t expect to see someone saying tobacco is safe in a story about thye damages smoking and “dipping” do.

No one would say the Earth is flat in a story about geology.

Few people believe that psychiatric illness is caused by demons, and no reporter would think he or she has to quote someone who does believe that.

The fact is that the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are losing ground, and it’s because we keep cutting taxes for the wealthy and for corporations and making up for lost money by taking services from the poor and shipping jobs overseas, villifying those who receive unemployment benefits as lazy and turning away the sick because they don’t have insurance.

The wealthy conservatives get away with it because the media continues to give validity to the lies and disinformation, and if someone doesn’t, they’re attacked as biased.

When the Harvard Medical School study that found 45,000 Americans die prematurely each year because they don’t have insurance was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association,  I offered a copy of the study to my local paper. The editor told me there wasn’t enough staff to cover a national story like this and the paper would rely on The Associated Press to cover it.

Well, the AP didn’t do a story. In fact, when I searched the Web for any mention of the study in the media, I found only two mentions: one in the Boston Globe Harvard is in Boston) and one in the Sacramento Bee.

It was Keith Olbermann who covered the story. Ed Shultz grabbed onto it like a pit bull and didn’t let go. Eventually, the story was mentioned in other media, but it was downplayed.

That’s just one example. Remember the Downing Street Memo that proved George W. Bush was tweaking the evidence to gain public support for his illegal war in Iraq? For months, the only place I heard about it was on Al Franken’s radio show.

We can’t trust big media anymore. Not Fox News, not even the New York Times. They’re withholding important information that Americans need to know and perpetuating the lies of the right.

a world of progress site | woven by WEBterranean