It's only media bias...

[Melissa]

ABC Devotes Almost Six Times More Coverage to Jim Bunning's Non-scandal Than to Charlie Rangel's Actual Scandal

I'm shocked.  Maybe it's because Rangel has been under investigation for over two years and still managed to even gain such a high position in a committee.  He just wasn't high on the media's hit list.  Yes, that must be it.

[maidboy]

What's more shocking and outrageous is the fact that Jim Bunning had to wait
25 years to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame!  This fireballing rightie
is 17th on the all-time strikeouts list with 2,855 and has an impressive 3.27
lifetime ERA.  As a Detroit Tiger, he hurled a no-hitter against Boston in 1958,
and in 1964 threw a perfect game against the Mets with the Philadelphia Phillies.
One of only six pitchers of all-time to throw a no-hitter and a perfect game!
Goddamn PC liberal Baseball establishment!  To Hell with 'em!

[Melissa]

If the powers that be in the MLB had started canning players for drug use decades ago, they might be of value.  It took far too long.

[maidboy]

If the powers that be in the MLB had started canning players for drug use decades ago, they might be of value.  It took far too long.

I'm afraid if they did that, there wouldn't have been enough players left
to field a team let alone two leagues.  Use of stimulants was rampant by
the 60s & 70s, and of course we all know about the steroids scandal that
began in the late 80s.

[DrRick947]

I think a lot of the difference in media treatment has more to do with personal style than with political leaning.  I remember when Bunning played for the Tigers and, later, the Phillies.  He was merely a jerk then; today, with decades’ more practice, he is a world-class asshole.

Rangel, on the other hand, is seen as a nice guy, approachable, candid, and very attuned to the needs of his district.  He gets the “all politics is local” bromide.  He may be crooked as a corkscrew but, all in all, he’s been a great plus for Harlem and the people there love him. 

Besides, Rangel stepped aside when his most recent scandal broke.  That was the right thing to do, but it doesn’t attract media flies the way being a jerk does.

Unfortunately, Bunning’s EXCELLENT point about paying for the extension of unemployment benefits was completely overshadowed by his abrasive personality and imperious style.  People want to see replays of the Bunning-CNN confrontation at the elevator a lot more than they want to see a talking head blather on about Rangel’s tax issues. 

So the media give the audience what they want.  That’s pretty much a complete abdication of journalistic responsibility but it’s where we are today.  The jerk gets the airtime; the tax cheat gets a pass.  Their party affiliations are incidental, IMHO.

[maidboy]

Excellent point Dr.R.  The mainstream news media is more interested in
entertaining the public than informing it.  Former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski
was also an abrasive personality whose fall from grace also got alot of publicity.
Ironically, disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich took over his seat
in Congress for a time.  He's another class A ass-wipe.

The news media also loves hypocrisy.  Disgraced Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL)
was a closeted gay moralistic homophobe who got caught propositioning underage
male congressional pages, and was forced to resign with much public ballyhoo.
Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) was similarly caught "chicken-hawking" with
congressional pageboys, and while there was a fair amount of publicity, he did
manage to get off with a slap on the wrist (pardon the expression!).

[Melissa]

The fact that any congress critter is allowed to remain in a ranking position while undergoing a serious investigation is hypocritical, regardless of party affiliation.  Those who come to mind most recently are William Jefferson, Ted Stevens and Charlie Rangel.  Pelosi endorsed two of them and didn't fight Stevens as he had too much power in the house.

[DrRick947]

Excellent point Dr.R.  The mainstream news media is more interested in
entertaining the public than informing it.  Former Congressman Dan Rostenkowski
was also an abrasive personality whose fall from grace also got alot of publicity.
Ironically, disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich took over his seat
in Congress for a time.  He's another class A ass-wipe.

The news media also loves hypocrisy.  Disgraced Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL)
was a closeted gay moralistic homophobe who got caught propositioning underage
male congressional pages, and was forced to resign with much public ballyhoo.
Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) was similarly caught "chicken-hawking" with
congressional pageboys, and while there was a fair amount of publicity, he did
manage to get off with a slap on the wrist (pardon the expression!).

Ha! I never heard “chicken-hawking” in that context before, and had to look it up.  (I didn’t think you meant, “a person who favors every war he doesn’t have to fight”, like Cheney, Perle, Kristol, etc.).  Hmm, I didn’t realize Barney Frank had been involved in that kind of thing.

What a rogue’s gallery you mention … Rostenkowski, Blagojevich, Foley.  Something’s not working when people like that get elected to Congress.  I don’t think they are the kinds of people the Founders had in mind.

Blago is more than just an ass-wipe, though.  I would call him maybe a festering carbuncle in the sweating crotch of humanity, but that would demean hard-working, self-respecting staph infections everywhere.  Let’s just say I hold Blago in especially low regard.

[DrRick947]

The fact that any congress critter is allowed to remain in a ranking position while undergoing a serious investigation is hypocritical, regardless of party affiliation.  Those who come to mind most recently are William Jefferson, Ted Stevens and Charlie Rangel.  Pelosi endorsed two of them and didn't fight Stevens as he had too much power in the house.

I see your point, Melissa.  These people under investigation should step aside as a matter of honor but where politics is involved, honor goes out the window.

We could require them to step aside, but then it might become too easy to set somebody up with a fake scandal so as to dilute or remove his influence on a particular bill or issue.  Ex-rep. Eric Massa is making that very claim now. 

Imagine: lobbyists and influence groups could arrange to have every member of Congress who opposed them involved somehow with a hooker, a young boy, or a drug dealer … in a renovated house with $90,000 in the fridge.  (Hey, running for Congress is sounding better and better!)

The current system at least allows a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, and that’s probably as it should be.

(Psst ... Ted Stevens was a Senator.)

[maidboy]

Ha! I never heard “chicken-hawking” in that context before, and had to look it up.  (I didn’t think you meant, “a person who favors every war he doesn’t have to fight”, like Cheney, Perle, Kristol, etc.).  Hmm, I didn’t realize Barney Frank had been involved in that kind of thing.

What a rogue’s gallery you mention … Rostenkowski, Blagojevich, Foley.  Something’s not working when people like that get elected to Congress.  I don’t think they are the kinds of people the Founders had in mind.

Blago is more than just an ass-wipe, though.  I would call him maybe a festering carbuncle in the sweating crotch of humanity, but that would demean hard-working, self-respecting staph infections everywhere.  Let’s just say I hold Blago in especially low regard.

Yeah, the term "chicken hawk" was used to describe pro-war draft dodgers
before it's gay connotation was generally made known.  Now they're called
"sissy hawks" as if that didn't have any sexual connotation.  And my mistake...
Barney Frank enjoyed the services a young male prostitute and hired him as
a personal assistant in 1985.  The enterprising lad was caught using Frank's
house as brothel which led to the public scandal.  Unlike Foley, Frank stayed
away from congressional pageboys, at least as far as we know.

And yes, Blago is an especially odious character.

[Melissa]

(Psst ... Ted Stevens was a Senator.)

I know but I tend to use "Congress" as a generic term when I refer to the legislative branch.  Or, as I more often think of them... their own little Aristocracy.

[Ric9009]

I'm confused.  Aside from not knowing a single name mentioned (although I do remember the scandals about the pageboys) I thought a Senator and a Congressman was the same animal or does the terminology mean different things?

[maidboy]

I'm confused.  Aside from not knowing a single name mentioned (although I do remember the scandals about the pageboys) I thought a Senator and a Congressman was the same animal or does the terminology mean different things?

Congress is a bicameral body with the Senate and House of Representatives
being the two houses.  There are 100 Senators (two per State) and 435
Representatives apportioned by a State's population. A House member is more
commonly referred to as "Congressman" and Senators as, well...Senator.
Legislation must be passed by both chambers before being sent to the President
to be signed into law.  The President may veto a bill, but that veto can be
over-ridden only by a two-thirds majority by each chamber.  Legislation may be
initiated in either Senate or House of Reps, but funding appropriation bills can
only be initiated in the House of Reps.  House members must be 25 years or
older and serve two year terms.  Senators must be 30 or older and serve
terms of six years.

[Melissa]

I'm impressed.  But, you answered his question in the first two lines.  Do you always run on with the mouth in that fashion?  Perhaps a diarrhea of the mouth, if you will?

What was your source, by the way?

By the way, how much of your life is cameral?  Or, do you understand the difference between in camera, cameral and bicameral?

[Ric9009]

The source is Wiki.  It seems to be used for everything.  Must have something to do with it coming up first in most searches.

I was aware of pretty much all of the information. The only thing that threw me was the use of the term "Congressman".  Until I looked I didn't realise that most news shows use "Congress" mostly to refer to the Senate where the term actually means both houses.  As I was unaware of that I couldn't see the difference between a Senator and a Congressman.  My error.

I have problems with both how the dual house method has actually turned out in the US as well as how the press behaves and the lack of any political will to protect those that are harmed by the press.  Their might be a right of free speech but just like everything else, that right needs to be balanced with the right of an individual to privacy.

Just as an example, can anyone tell me what was gained by the enormous publicity concerning Tiger Woods and his affairs?  They were privately conducted and were not illegal.  He is a golfer and even if he was a politician, exactly what right does the press have to bring up private details of a person's life?  Exactly what was gained by the press coverage?  Did it help Mr Wood's wife?  Did it have anything at all to do with golf?  Did it expose any hypocrisy such as the topic of this thread where a politician publically condemned a behavior he himself practiced.

I don't quite see what was gained by this.  Even in Europe, where affairs are treated far less seriously or with such prurient interest as the US, the French Prime Minister and his wife have had to constantly address continued press allegations they both have affairs.  And in their case there appears to be no evidence aside from the wife being very attractive.  At least if it is shown that he has had affairs, being French it will have no real impact on his career or his ability to perform his duties.

As to the operation of the US political system with two very unbalanced houses and a President all being able to make policy but all having to pass it for it to get through (with various exceptions such as the President's veto being cast aside if two thirds of both houses do not agree with him) it really doesn't belong in this thread so I'll leave it for another time maybe.

[maidboy]

I'm impressed.  But, you answered his question in the first two lines.  Do you always run on with the mouth in that fashion?  Perhaps a diarrhea of the mouth, if you will?

What was your source, by the way?

By the way, how much of your life is cameral?  Or, do you understand the difference between in camera, cameral and bicameral?

Actually it was the first three lines.  I'm not surprised you'd be impressed
with this basic knowledge of the Constitution seeing as you've demonstrated
a remarkable ignorance of it many times in the past.  And little wonder you'd
find my adding information about the American political process for a non-
American in a good faith effort to be helpful, as diarrhea of the mouth.
Helpfulness & good faith are not words in your vocabulary, are they?
And speaking of vocabulary, to answer your last question, suffice it to say,
the Latin "camera" is cognate with the English "chamber."

[Ric9009]

Maidboy,

You really don't like Melissa do you?  I guess I understand as her politics is very different to yours and it must be hard to read arguments that seem to you to be so wrong.

Since the post was aimed at me and you think I am not a US citizen and as such may have some problems with the US method of government (and the use of a word inappropriately by news had indeed thrown me), I appreciate your effort to help.  I'm sure it was of use to others that also do not call the US home but have some interest in these discussions.  And if anyone runs on about subjects I would have thought that would be me.  I'm not sure I've ever posted anything of less than several paragraphs in this room.

I thank you for your attempt to assist.  Just so it does not sound like I am totally rubbishing the US from the comfort of another country, which sometimes annoys me especially when UN inspectors come to Australia and tell us we are one of the worst countries in the world when we are no such thing, I will explain a little.

I live in Australia but actually am also a US citizen.  I have been in the US military.  My doctorate in law is a US terminal degree and Constitutional law was something that I was once heavily involved in but it was a very long time go and anyone that says they can remember everything they learn or does not need to look things up from time to time is a liar.

The make up of the US Supreme Court and their decisions facscinate me, hence the comments in another post concerning the right to privacy.  It is a pity that it was not enshrined in the Constitution as to my mind it is a fundamental right.  But 200 odd years ago the press would never dream of reporting on the personal life of a President - well not in the same way as is normally done now - and so I suspect that the right to privacy was just assumed.  To give but one very small example, with the advent of the Internet, a malicious attack on someone may get some press and then disappear but now it lives on forever.  A friend filled out an online dating form and received a great many replies but women would often suddenly run cold.  Eventually he had a woman that came right out and say he was a crook and she told him she never wished to see him again.  He was devistated as they had had a relationship for about three months and I think she had become extremely important to him.  He asked me about it and I did a search on his name.  The first thing that came up was a news report that had accused him of being a crook.  The news article was false and had came about because the news organisation had mixed him up with someone else of the same name.  They had withdrawn the article and apologised but that information came up first in a Google search on page three.  I hadn't even thought about it until that point but it seems that it is now very common practice to  blook someone up, even someone that you are casually dating, on Google or whatever search engine you are using.  So a negative comment now stays with you for the rest of your life if you are not very famous and very little gets reported about you.  We fixed the poor bloke's problem by adding his profile to a couple of dozen web pages for companies he was associated with but had not been mentioned.  That shoved the old story on to page two of a Google search and women suddenly going cold on him stopped completely.

I understand that there have been a great many people that do not obtain employment because it is not SOP for Human Resources to do a Facebook search on potential employees.  So those topless shots of a woman on her backpacking holiday tagged on someone else's Facebook page means that she doesn't get the job.  You could say that a woman that did that deserves to miss out on employment but Facebook was meant to communicate with your friends and no one else really about silly things.  My son almost lost his job because he commented about a party he went to and how hungover he was for work on Monday and it was brought to the attention of his boss.  He was joking about the perils of having too good at time and being for friends and having a reputation for partying he failed to mention in his Facebook comment that he was at the party with his girlfriend of four years, she was sober and drove him home and this was no longer normal behaviour for him at all.  He was just celebrating, ironically, a major advancement at work.

Perhaps someone could tell me how the oh so terribly reliable posts on Facebook about someone have any relevance to  an employer or that a false news article of years old should cause a person to lose a relationship.  Perhaps I get too annoyed about all this because it has personally effected me greatly.  I do get publicity because of the climate work I do and one journalist just doesn't like me very much.  I received an irate message on my phone from a friend and then an email saying that she never wished to talk to me again because I was a liar.  I could not work out what she was talking about until I found that the latest article she had written had put my age as 18 years older than I am.  You'd think that a mistake in an age wouldn't be important but to this person it was and if it is in print then it obviously must be true.  It wouldn't have mattered much at all except over the next year or so I had to address the point of my age with at least a dozen people and this was just a very minor issue of a couple of words indicating my age being much older than I actually am.

Another rambling post very much off topic but, hey, that's what sometimes makes these threads interesting.

[DrRick947]

Ric, the idea of a bicameral legislature was actually a compromise among the Founders.  The idea was that the people would elect Representatives and state legislatures would elect Senators – two per state.  That made “we the People” equal in one house and all states equal in the other house.  Some states have larger populations than others so large states have more influence in the House of Representatives.  In the Senate, largest and smallest states have equal influence.

That wasn’t a bad compromise – senators represent states and representatives represent people – and it worked until 1913, when the Constitution was amended to provide for direct election of Senators.  Now it just looks like the two houses of Congress are doing the same thing, scrounging for money and pandering for votes.  The wisdom of the Founders – to shield Senators from electoral pressures – now becomes apparent, too late.

You mentioned that politicians’ (and celebrities’) dalliances are treated less seriously in Europe than in the US.  That’s for sure: I was in Europe in 1974 as Watergate was unfolding and again in 1997 when the Monica Lewinsky saga was coming to light.  People had the same reactions both times: “What’s with you Americans?  You would force your president to resign over an office break-in?” or, later, “impeach him over a blow job?”  They did not see what all the fuss was about, as long as it did not interfere with government.

You mentioned how Kennedy got a bye from the press on his many affairs in a way that Clinton did not.  He sure did.  JFK was a prodigious fornicator, no other way to say it.  That guy laid more pipe than Rockefeller himself.  When he was around not even the crack of dawn was safe.  But the press in those days overlooked those things; “the people’s need to know” did not extend to such matters.  By the time Clinton took office that had all changed.

I’ll say this for JFK: he had good taste in women.  His women looked like they came from Hollywood.  Clinton’s women looked like they came from Hollywood Park (a horse racing track on California).

[maidboy]

Maidboy,

You really don't like Melissa do you?  I guess I understand as her politics is very different to yours and it must be hard to read arguments that seem to you to be so wrong.

Yes, it seems that we're charter members of the Mutual Contempt Society.
It's not just her politics I find objectionable, but her ill mannered name calling
(not so much at me, I can take it & return fire with even greater nastiness)
and snide little remarks in practically every one of her posts.  I mean really...
give it a rest girl!  I have an abiding respect for well-meaning Conservatives
whose politics differ greatly from my own.  Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, conservative
columnist George Will, and even John McCain when he's not in one of his more
cranky combative moods, come immediately to mind.  But Right Wing flame
throwers like Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al are beneath contempt imo.
Their simple minded & deceitful demagoguery is quite alarming as is their
popularity among a gullible public.  Our resident Right Wing keyboard warrior
seems to emulate these four.  Geez, lighten up already!

[maidboy]

I thank you for your attempt to assist.  Just so it does not sound like I am totally rubbishing the US from the comfort of another country, which sometimes annoys me especially when UN inspectors come to Australia and tell us we are one of the worst countries in the world when we are no such thing, I will explain a little.

I can certainly understand America bashing from the four corners of the globe,
given our materialism, love of guns, poor educational & health care systems,
woeful ignorance of other cultures, and our fondness for being "policeman" and
"schoolyard bully" to the rest of the world.  But it is also annoying when such
bashing is exaggerated and based on ill-informed stereotypes, especially coming
from smug, self-righteous Europeans.  So if y'all can dish it out, be prepared to
take it as well!  So here goes.....

Racism.....Unlike most of the world, America is a diverse society that is coming
to terms with its racist past.  Which is more than I can say for countries like
India with its racist caste system; China, whose government plays a game of
"divide & rule" with their different ethnic groups; Japan who treats their ethnic
Koreans like second class citizens; and likewise for Europeans who treat their
former colonial residents like dirt.  And an overt racist like Italy's Berlusconi
could never be elected to high public office here in America.

Rigid Class Structure....I've known a few Europeans who have come here to
attend college because that opportunity has been permanently closed to them
in their home country.  By the age of 16, most Europeans career & educational
paths have already mapped out, with little or no opportunity for change.
While there is an ever widening gap between rich & poor in America, I believe
there is much greater opportunity for social mobility here than elsewhere.
And an anachronistic titled aristocracy is anathema to most Americans.

Gender Equality....The shabby treatment of women in the Muslim world almost
goes without saying, as is their treatment throughout most of Asia & Africa.
Gender equality in Western Europe is on a par with that here in the US, but in
Eastern Europe?  Not so much.  The horrific trafficking of young girls & women
in the flesh trade over there is fairly well documented and quite disturbing.

And Finally....Soccer Hooligans!  Can't you Europeans (Brits especially!) enjoy
The Beautiful Game without your silly violent tribalism?  We Americans can go
to sporting events without fans of opposing teams having to be separated by
police and iron fences.  Hell, even New York Yankee & Boston Red Sox fans
can enjoy a ballgame with relatively few incidents of mild drunken violence!

End of rant and God bless America despite her faults!