Rick Santorum: "Women Fantasize on Being Raped by Three Men Simultaneously"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/05/28/putting-bernie-gurney

What a pig.

the article is actually about an essay that bernie sanders wrote, not rick santorum. santorum is still a pig, though.

Is there a place to read the full Bernie Sanders essay? I'm highly suspicious these days of things quoted out of context.

A 43 year old essay. WTF. I've been following my hockey team the Rangers for 43 years. What I knew then about hockey--what I know now is night and day.

We know it's candidate season when people start digging up anything they can find.

Anyway I've liked Sanders for quite a while. If there's a real lefty in congress--it's pretty much him. IMO he's got almost no chance of winning the democratic ticket. Obama--whether he likes her much or not is going to get on the Clinton bandwagon just because of the party solidarity thing of getting behind the next candidate with the most name recognition. Anyway Sanders still talks about being a socialist and that is not going to fly.

Here's a link to an article about Sanders that includes a photo of the essay:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/young-bernie-sanders-liberty-union-v...

Not sure we can deride Sander's for his rather tame little musings when the book titled "Fifty Shades of Grey" has been on the best seller list for over a year or so, the author (whose writing was elementary level to say the least) is now teaching a writing class, and the movie was a block buster hit.

>6 faceinbook:

oh, come on. nothing tame about what the article in the op says he said.

i don't care a whole lot because, as >4 lriley: says, it was a long time ago and would assume he doesn't feel this way now (yes i'd say the same thing for rick santorum). but let's not call what he said "tame little musings" because it most certainly wouldn't be if he'd said it now.

I don't understand what exactly is the crime here. Some women do enjoy sexual fantasies of rape, for all I know with three hundred men. And?

>7 overlycriticalme: Sanders's essay reads like a little parable. It's blinkered and simplistic, and at about 500 words not the be-all/end-all statement on the nature of male and female sexuality even circa 1972.

A lot about Sanders is kind of inspiring. Who runs for mayor of Burlington Vermont--a decent sized city--as a Socialist back around the time of Ronald Reagan's glory days--and wins? And some year's later takes Vermont's only congressional seat in Washington and is pretty much shunned by both parties. The democrats wouldn't even put him on a committee--any committee. Wanted nothing to do with him. He's persevered all these years and he's pretty much stuck to the same message--that the poor and the working people of this country are the playthings for the wealthy. I know some people don't think that and I'm pretty sure that even today most American's think socialist is a dirty word. And meanwhile both major parties continue to move towards the right.

>6 faceinbook:, >9 southernbooklady:

i hadn't been able to read the actual article until now. sorry, fib. no, i'd actually say that the op article takes it more than out of context and kind of twists his point.

Yeah, it's a complete hoax. It's so out of context it hardly qualifies as a distortion. Just some mud slinging...

Can we still use this thread to bash Santorum? Neat-o!

Mr Santorum is the creepiest Republican candidate, the one who doesn't need grease paint and floppy shoes to terrify bystanders.

I find it ironic that nobody here is talking about the actual point of the story in the OP:

Joseph made the point that if “Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum wrote something along these lines -- even 40 years ago -- the media wouldn't stop talking about it for weeks.” The proof of that assumption is the Todd Akin hullaballoo of 2012. When the Republican Senate candidate in Missouri lamely suggested the female body could block pregnancy in a “legitimate rape,” the ABC, CBS, and NBC morning and evening news shows launched 45 segemnts (lasting 96 minutes) over three and a half days.

And >12 LolaWalser: and >13 theoria: are the proof in this thread: Rick Santorum is being bashed despite having done nothing, while Sanders is given a pass, because it was written 40 years ago.

Most confusing to me is >8 LolaWalser: "I don't understand what exactly is the crime here," given that this very same poster thought that Trevor Noah was an asshole for telling a few off-color jokes about lesbians (http://www.librarything.com/topic/189584 ).

(To be fair, it seems to me that, even with the scant context quoted in the article linked in the OP, Sanders' was making a good point, i.e. that rape fantasies for both men and women are the negative consequence of power inequalities in sexual relationships; and that a sexual revolution in which men and women are equals would alleviate the violent and abusive tendences of power differentials. That is, he was criticizing rape fantasies as a consequence of patriarchy.)

>14 nathanielcampbell: My statement in >13 theoria: is only proof that I find Mr Santorum to be creepy.

>14 nathanielcampbell: I don't see how a lawmaker in 2012 saying that "the female body could block pregnancy in a “legitimate rape,”" (and really, could that sentence be more wrong-headed?) is at all in the same category as one who wrote about sexual fantasies in 1972. Akin was talking about the reality of rape, Sanders was talking about the fantasy of rape.

So yeah, I give people a pass on their fantasies. I don't give anyone a pass on spreading untruths about the reality of rape.

Mr Santorum would ban abortion even in the case of rape. https://youtu.be/rfbKR6qBa48

>16 southernbooklady: "So yeah, I give people a pass on their fantasies. I don't give anyone a pass on spreading untruths about the reality of rape. "

But again, I don't think the issue here is the reality of the potentially controversial statements (as I said, it seems to me that Sanders was censuring the patriarchal causes of rape fantasies). Rather, the issue is how those controversial statements are treated in the media, or in this thread, by posters who are inherently sympathetic to Sanders (and thus defend him against scurrilous charges) but inherently hostile to Santorum (and thus can bash him even in the absence of specific reasons for it).

ETA: In light of >2 overlycriticalme:, >12 LolaWalser: and >17 theoria:, this thread could be summarized thus:
1. Bernie Sanders wrote a provocative statement that could be construed as saying that women like to be raped.
2. Oh look -- let's beat up on Rick Santorum!

It's a complete non sequitur, but par for the course for the ideologically-polarized.

(To be fair, Tim is also to blame for the thread title, whose irony seems to have flown over the heads of most everybody else.)

>18 nathanielcampbell:

1. Bernie Sanders wrote a provocative statement that could be construed as saying that women like to be raped.

Read the photostat of Sanders' article in >5 southernbooklady:: it's actually an indictment of power dynamics beloved by macho porn. The quoted part is the very beginning, illustrating the situation Sanders is criticising. And you know what--no matter how quaint some of the stuff in that piece--it's VERY seventies--it's light years ahead of your attitude to women's rights, from sex, abortion, contraception to political engagement.

You're riding a pygmy pig, you effing Knight of Misread, Imputation and Obfuscation, not a gallant white steed.

Those imbeciles Tim apparently reads with devotion remind me of kids looking up "dirty" words anywhere they can put their hands on--only the imbeciles, of course, aren't innocent.

>18 nathanielcampbell: Rather, the issue is how those controversial statements are treated in the media, or in this thread

So which of these two examples is being treated unfairly in the media or by me?

The one from Bernie Sanders, which was out of context? Or the one by Mr. Akin? Was his stated opinion about blocking pregnancy and legitimate rape taken out of context?

You want to complain that the media (or me) isn't as mean to Democrats as it is to Republicans, then you'll need to find a better, more relevant example.

>14 nathanielcampbell:

Yes, NC. We got the point around the time you complained that you couldn't use the word "nigger". There's a double standard at play, and you're being raped.

>19 LolaWalser: "it's actually an indictment of power dynamics beloved by macho porn. "

Well yeah, that's what I said in >14 nathanielcampbell:

To be fair, it seems to me that, even with the scant context quoted in the article linked in the OP, Sanders' was making a good point, i.e. that rape fantasies for both men and women are the negative consequence of power inequalities in sexual relationships; and that a sexual revolution in which men and women are equals would alleviate the violent and abusive tendences of power differentials. That is, he was criticizing rape fantasies as a consequence of patriarchy.

and in >18 nathanielcampbell:

(as I said, it seems to me that Sanders was censuring the patriarchal causes of rape fantasies).

Since you and I agree on what Sanders was saying (and we agree that construing it to mean that women like to be raped would be a dishonest construction), I don't really know what this means in >19 LolaWalser: "You're riding a pygmy pig, you effing Knight of Misread, Imputation and Obfuscation, not a gallant white steed."

Or is it that you're the one riding the Mare of Misread whilst flying the banner of Obfuscation?

>21 southernbooklady: "legitimate rape taken out of context"

While I can't defend Akin's comments (given that they were downright wrong about the facts of human biology), it should be noted that, in using the phrase "legitimate rape," he wasn't saying that some rape is legitimate (i.e. okay). Rather, he was trying to distinguish between forcible rape and other things that we call rape but which may not involve physical force, e.g. statutory rape. So yeah, people who got outraged that he was trying to legitimize rape were taking his comments out of context. (Of course, his comments were totally wrong for other reasons that had nothing to do with taking them out of context.)

Note once again, for those who seem to have trouble reading my entire posts: I am not defending Akin's comments, nor am I suggesting that statutory rape (e.g.) is less serious than other subcategories of rape.

>24 nathanielcampbell: Rather, he was trying to distinguish between forcible rape and other things that we call rape but which may not involve physical force, e.g. statutory rape. So yeah, people who got outraged that he was trying to legitimize rape were taking his comments out of context.

Don't you think the outrage is based on his apparent conviction that rape is a question of force, not consent? That's a perfectly good reason to be outraged.

And I still don't think you've made the case (nor has the writer in the article of the OP) that such outrage is proof of some kind of double standard. The sum total of the author's case seems to be "if a republican said what Bernie Sanders said, lefties would be frothing" -- and his "proof" of such an assertion was the (completely justified, as far as I can tell) outrage over Akin's misrepresentation of rape. But the comparison fails, for all the reasons stated above. The article simply doesn't make a persuasive case for this supposed double standard.

If Bernie Sanders called a press conference to say that all Christians were homophobic bigots by default...that would be a case deserving outrage. If the media ignored or excused such a statement, that would be an example of a double standard. But he hasn't done such a thing.

For avoidance of doubt, I think Santorum is a creep. I mostly dislike his politics too, which falls on the social-conservative and populist end of conservatism, which I consider the worst end. To the extent I have a feeling about Sanders personally, it's to admire his cranky contrarianism. Obviously he's to the left of me, but that's not a question of character. I don't think either could ever become president.

The only reason I posted this was to test the point, which I think well-tested here and fantastically well tested at large in political discussion, that how one reacts to questionable stuff—real or capable of being made to seem real—has a lot more to do with whose ox is gored than anything else.

>26 timspalding: The only reason I posted this was to test the point, which I think well-tested here and fantastically well tested at large in political discussion, that how one reacts to questionable stuff—real or capable of being made to seem real—has a lot more to do with whose ox is gored than anything else.

I don't see how being aware of the difference between a simplistic op ed piece on sexual fantasies form 1972 and a medically inaccurate, socially insensitive, and legally suspect statement about rape from several years ago can be blamed on some kind of anti-conservative bias.

>26 timspalding:

Bullshit.

>27 southernbooklady:

That comparison is not mine—I never mentioned the legitimate rape comment; others did. As I said, there are real things and there are things that can be made to seem real.(1)

As for anti-conservative bias, I didn't say that either. The bias is two-way. When "your guy" says something icky, people dig deep and find out whether it's true, and very often find ways to excuse it. When the other guy's guy says something icky, it's true, and it's representative of everything wrong about the opposition.

---

1. To the extent I have an opinion, I think the "legitimate rape" stuff may be partially taken out of context but speaks to a real and repellant thing in his views. The Sanders thing is not, I think, disqualifying, although it coheres with this guy being a somewhat fringe-y. He was critiquing patriarchy and that's great, but it's an odd thing to assert and it makes you wonder where he got the idea everyone fantasizes about raping or being raped.

>29 timspalding:

You made a doodoo and now are flailing all over the place trying to cover it up.

it makes you wonder where he got the idea everyone fantasizes about raping or being raped.

Only from everywhere and everyone, ever.

ETA: I mean the culture, Zeitgeist, media.

>29 timspalding: The bias is two-way. When "your guy" says something icky, people dig deep and find out whether it's true, and very often find ways to excuse it. When the other guy's guy says something icky, it's true, and it's representative of everything wrong about the opposition.

I don't disagree about the polarization of politics--especially in the US--but I don't think the OP article is a good illustration of it.

As far as "willingness to dig deep" I think as a general rule people are inclined to accept at face value things that seem to confirm their already-existing assumptions. We don't start looking further unless those assumptions are challenged in some way.

Of course, when they are challenged, we have to be careful not to ignore the evidence we don't like in preference for the evidence we do. We're not good at that. We prefer our political positions be served up in a series of talking points so we know where we stand without having to think too hard about it. That's true whether you call yourself red or blue.

Looking solely at presidential candidates, there are currently 2 people running for the Democrat nomination. One is Bernie Saunders, who while being very left of center and IMO unelectable, is not a guy prone to saying very crazy things as a general rule. The other is Hillary Clinton, who whatever else you want to say about her, is a serious and professional person.

There are as of yesterday 8 people running for the Republican nomination, and you would be hard-pressed to find a one of them who does not come off as loony-tunes. The only one who seems at all sensible to me is George Pataki, and quite frankly, I don't know all that much about him.

So, when you compare the two slates against one another, which one is going to produce more gaffes and be fodder for more news stories making fun of them? I'm sorry, but if the Republicans don't want that happening, they need to field more serious candidates.

Just take a look: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/2016-presidential-candidate...

This is not bias. This is today's Republican party.

>32 sturlington: "This is not bias."

If Joe Biden were running, would the Democrats have a "loony-tune" candidate?

What's your point? He's not running.

>24 nathanielcampbell:
The point behind redefining rape and using terms like "legitimate" rape is about abortion. You see, some men are under the impression that a woman can not get pregnant unless they enjoy the encounter. Hence, seeking an abortion due to rape would be a nonstarter. Wasn't a rape.....she liked it.

By the way....I dream of riding on a roller coaster and I am quite certain I would HATE it. Certainly isn't something I would do willingly. Sometimes I actually fantasize about that roller coaster, it makes what ever difficultly I am enduring seem not so bad after all.

>29 timspalding:

"He was critiquing patriarchy and that's great, but it's an odd thing to assert and it makes you wonder where he got the idea everyone fantasizes about raping or being raped"

Because rape isn't about sex, it is about power and control.

"1. To the extent I have an opinion, I think the "legitimate rape" stuff may be partially taken out of context"

Yes, it is about redefining what rape is so that an abortion can not be an option. Which is extremely icky. Not to mention totally disrespectful to women.

>36 faceinbook:

How ironic that you would take my quote out of context. Here's what I actually said. I have bolded the part you chose to leave out.

"To the extent I have an opinion, I think the "legitimate rape" stuff may be partially taken out of context but speaks to a real and repellant thing in his views."

So, while I'm not inclined to focus in on his use of the word "legitimate," his larger point is repellant. On this we agree. But perhaps we won't agree when you rip apart my words again.

I'm reminded of an article that I'd seen passed around after the shooting of Michael Brown. Wherein my Conservative FB friends linked to a a piece about a black officer who shot a young white man who was high on LSD at the time (if I recall correctly) and expressed outrage that there was no outrage over such an incident.

The incident mentioned in the article had occurred something like two years back. In the time since Brown's shooting, there were at least 4 other shootings of black youth by white police officers that I'd heard of.

>29 timspalding: He was critiquing patriarchy and that's great, but it's an odd thing to assert and it makes you wonder where he got the idea everyone fantasizes about raping or being raped.

You've taken that quote out of context. It wasn't a statement about everyone.

>37 timspalding: "How ironic that you would take my quote out of context."

That seems to be a common tactic on this thread -- so >19 LolaWalser: completely ignoring the fact that in >14 nathanielcampbell: and >18 nathanielcampbell: I made the exact same analysis of Sanders' comments as she does (to wit, that he was criticizing rape fantasies as the product of patriarchy), all in order to attack me for not making that analysis.

On a serious note, I just finished Frontline's fantastic documentary "United States of Secrets," now a year old. ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/#united-states-... ) I don't know how I missed it.

The whole NSA/Snowden story goes to the heart of my argument. If the full extent of the NSA's trampoline of Constitutional trampling had been exposed under Bush, Democrats would have been up in arms—Obama himself would have been up in arms, as his many statements indicate. Bush would have lost the election over it—and very correctly.

But it happened under Obama, and, after some hot news days, Democrats, who had formerly excoriated Bush for revelations not a tenth as damning(1), shrugged and moved on. The press too moved on, when it should have torn Obama limb from limb for serial and extreme hypocrisy and violations of core Constitutional protections.

For most people, where you stand is about who you love and who you hate. Little more. I find that enormously depressing.

---

1. This is not to say the facts weren't as damning. But the revelations mostly waited for Snowden.

The whole NSA/Snowden story goes to the heart of my argument. If the full extent of the NSA's trampoline of Constitutional trampling had been exposed under Bush, Democrats would have been up in arms—Obama himself would have been up in arms, as his many statements indicate. Bush would have lost the election over it—and very correctly.

Oddly enough, some of us have been up in arms about that for quite some time. And it's one of the things about the current administration that we find least likable.

When the revelations were made about the extent of the NSA's spying on American citizens, an old classmate of mine posted something about it with a comment to the effect that it was yet more evidence what a dictatorial asshole are current Kenyan president is. I agreed with him that it was shitty behavior, and pointed out that Obama was actually renewing a program started under Bush.

The conversation immediately turned to taxes.

>34 sturlington:

The point of the question was to calibrate your ostensible lack of bias.

#41--not everyone on the left is a partisan democrat. Candidate Obama talked about bringing transparency to the govt. and as well to the office of the POTUS--which sadly turned into nothing but bullshit as soon as he was elected and assumed office. Edward Snowden is an object lesson to that fact. I think I've said this a few times before here FWIW. He's been as much about silence and secrecy as any of the past several presidents. Carried on most of the policies put in place by the Bush 2 administration--sometimes even enhanced them. Has defended the Patriot act--has continued with the Iraq and Afghan adventures--has committed to the same kinds of trade policies that have helped to wreck our economy. It goes on and on. He and the Clinton's have sold their party to the wealthy while selling out Main St.

I agreed with him that it was shitty behavior, and pointed out that Obama was actually renewing a program started under Bush.

That's very true, but it's also true that the state of emergency was that much farther away, Obama had publicly campaigned against that sort of secrecy, and that the program grew by orders of magnitude under Obama. So, yeah, impeach them both. Also, no new taxes :)

What I don't understand about the current tenor of American politics is the all-or-nothing approach: if you don't like a candidate, you must hate everything about him/her. If you do, then everything has an excuse. Barack Obama has pleased me on some things, disappointed me on others. I don't feel inclined to excuse him for what I don't like: the lack of transparency, the abuses of power by the NSA, the hawkish, but seemingly incoherent foreign policies, etc. I do give him credit for other things: the ACA, as flawed as it is, and being willing to (finally) officially support same-sex rights -- albeit long after he was sure which way the political winds were blowing. He's neither angel nor devil, but a generally thoughtful and deliberate person who often takes actions I do not agree with.

Some of the most interesting political debates I've had have been with my brother, over Rand Paul, who, even though my brother and I agree on many issues, he likes and I do not. He likes Paul's libertarian stance. I don't like his social policies. But once again, it's not a case of whether he's an angel or a devil, or whether the things I don't like some how invalidate the things my brother does like.

Personally I don't think Paul's economic policies are going to work. Then again the economic policies of the Bush and Obama administrations resemble Reagan's trickle down policies more and more and they don't work--not for the vast majority of people. Trade policy only continues to exacerbate the damage done. I'd expect Paul would continue--maybe in a somewhat different way the republican war on working people. Then again Paul seems to often talk about deescalating drug war policies--demilitarizing police, legalizing marijuana, looking into incarceration rates etc. etc. What he might do with the Iraq and Afghan adventures I'm not sure. Personally I'm sick and tired of both these regions of the world. We never had any business being in Iraq. Admit defeat--pull the troops out otherwise we're going to be farting around there for the next 50-100 years.

>37 timspalding:
"But perhaps we won't agree when you rip apart my words again."

I had no intention of "ripping apart your words"

I was just clarifying where the idea of "legitimate" rape came from. Paul Ryan played around with this as well. It does have to do with abortion. Akin was just parroting and it is INDEED repellent.....the entire thing is repellent. That a male lawmaker would repeat talking points in reference to women who have been abused is just as repellent as his lack of knowledge about what he is yammering on about and the voting power he has to make decisions about a woman's healthcare. The whole ball of wax stinks. Hard for me as a woman to pick out what is most repellent. Probably harder for me than for you I would guess. In any case....I was NOT attacking what you said.

>48 faceinbook:

Thanks for clarifying.

>43 cpg: What I was trying to express, not well, was that it's a matter of numbers. When one side has that many people running, many of them willing to say outrageous things to appeal to a certain audience, then of course they are going to make the news far more often. If the numbers were more equal and both sides were behaving similarly, I would agree that there's bias there.

My father was a lifelong liberal and he hated Obama as much as any Fox news watcher before he died. But what choice do you have if the alternative is clearly much worse? One of the last things he said to me was the he was glad he wasn't going to have to live through the election (Romney-Obama).

I have quite a lot of contempt for the Democrats myself, and I consider myself very left-wing. Where the Republicans err on the side of excess--too many candidates too willing to say out-there things whether they believe them or not--the Democrats have the opposite problem. What if I don't want to vote for Hillary (and I'm not sure I do)? I'm not voting for someone who can't win, and I can't vote for a member of a party that routinely curtails the rights of half the population and denies that our environment is in serious trouble. So I have no choice. I would love to see more courage in the Democrats, more people willing to take a stand and try to lead. My views on Obama are mixed, like SBL's and a lot of Democrats, but I do think he has done a lot of positive things that tend to get forgotten. And, unlike a lot of Democrats, he ran campaigns that got people excited.

Take for our example, my state's last Senate race. Thom Tillis should not have won. That race was neck-in-neck most of the time, and he is a ridiculous person. The reason Kay Hagan lost, in my opinion, is that she's just such a non-entity, not willing to actually get out there and lead.

News Busters??!! Seriously, News Busters!!?? Famous, in their own words, for "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media." When we already know that truth has a liberal bias -- uh huh.

And LT readers are expected to make reasoned arguments pro/con that source's "story"? At least, cant the topic originator go to the original source (the essay itself) and make his/her own introductory remarks based on their thinking/opinions?

News Busters. . .Gawd help us.

>51 Limelite: I presume you have similar feelings about articles posted from, say, ThinkProgress?

Why would you assume that?

>53 Limelite: You're objection to NewsBusters (and it's a good and valid objection) is that they present their "news" thoroughly filtered through an ideological bias. The same thing is true, of course, of sites such as ThinkProgress -- though the ideological filter might be different, the process of skewing news coverage to fit a predetermined paradigm is the same.

(....dammit, I told myself I wasn't going to comment in this thread because of the odd framing, the slimy source, and the reprehensible motivation...but here I am.)

Well, no.

The "even-handed", "objective" standard is bullshit, leading to bullshit like "Mr Hitler could not be reached in his bunker for a reply." Sometimes one side is clearly wrong, and attempts to "strike an objective balance" are just bullshit.

The quest for "one the one hand" journalism leads us to nonsense like this, equating a intelligent speculation by a candidate 40-some years ago with the ignorant blatherings of a GOP candidate today.

How many similar speculations do we guess that the candidate has made in the intervening years? How many similar blatherings are on hand for the candidate that's still speaking? Are these data points that we're looking at indicative of a larger pattern?

It depends a little on the writer, but Thing Progress certainly leans hard to the left. Thanks to the demographics of my facebook feed, I tend to see a fair number of them. It's always worth checking the cited sources (at least they cite sources) until you get down to the bare bones news wire report.

But my personal rule is to be suspicious of any news that states opinion as fact -- something that modern media, which relies on the frothiness of its readership as the measure of its success -- is guilty of across the board.

>57 southernbooklady: "something that modern media, which relies on the frothiness of its readership as the measure of its success -- is guilty of across the board."

But, but, but -- you're equivocating!

>55 AsYouKnow_Bob: "The "even-handed", "objective" standard is bullshit, leading to bullshit like "Mr Hitler could not be reached in his bunker for a reply." Sometimes one side is clearly wrong, and attempts to "strike an objective balance" are just bullshit."

You're putting words in my mouth that aren't there. I'm not arguing for some Fox News claim of "fair and balanced" (and in the mouth of Fox News, that's about the most ludicrously false claim out there). Rather, I'm arguing that one should be aware of the biases that distort media coverage in organizations--like both NewsBusters and ThinkProgress--that make their ideological POV the primary lens for their writing.

Critically evaluating the ideological narratives that underlie online media is an essential skill that my wife and I, for example, try to teach our students. (She incorporated such evaluation explicitly into the most recent iteration of her course on biotechnology, for example -- having the students cull online articles and rate them each week in relation to a specified topic, e.g. vaccines, GMO's, fermentation, etc..)

But other than >57 southernbooklady:, the rest of the posters here seem to think that if a source parrots their own ideological biases (in this case, liberal posters and ThinkProgress), it need not be scrutinized. How very myopic.

>58 nathanielcampbell: the rest of the posters here seem to think that if a source parrots their own ideological biases (in this case, liberal posters and ThinkProgress), it need not be scrutinized.

Considering how often The Heritage Foundation has been cited on these fora since I've been participating, it's not an issue limited to liberals.

But there is a difference between bias and perspective, don't you think? I visit the feminist website jezebel.com fairly often -- they have an obvious "bias" in that they take an explicitly feminist slant on the news. But they also offer an alternative perspective that is absolutely valid and not to be found in any other venue.

If you are a savvy reader, willing to do a little more than regurgitate the talking points of your particular party line, then you can acknowledge another perspective without getting defensive or feeling like your entire world view is under some kind of attack.

>59 southernbooklady: "Considering how often The Heritage Foundation has been cited on these fora since I've been participating, it's not an issue limited to liberals. "

Well, sure -- but the predominant political perspective here in Pro and Con is left-of-center. (Anybody who can't see that has got some seriously tinted glasses.)

"But there is a difference between bias and perspective, don't you think? "

Absolutely -- and I think Jezebel is a great example of that. (On the right, I would nominate http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ .)

ThinkProgress, however, is closer to a Fox-News type than a Jezebel. (Consider that one of their "Statements of Principles" is, "ThinkProgress is not partisan," which seems right up there with Fox's "fair and balanced." Another is, "ThinkProgress is committed to accuracy" -- despite the fact that I have seen them run anti-GMO articles that are as crapful of pseudo-science as any climate-change-denier on Fox News.) {ETA: Although with both Fox and ThinkProgress, most of the ideological filtering has less to do with outright falsehoods and more to do with highly selective presentation of the story -- spinning it beyond recognition with reality simply by emphasizing a few details whilst omitting many other, key ones.}

"If you are a savvy reader, willing to do a little more than regurgitate the talking points of your particular party line, then you can acknowledge another perspective without getting defensive or feeling like your entire world view is under some kind of attack."

Absolutely -- again, a reason why I do often read Jezebel, or Slate, or yes, even some ThinkProgress pieces. (Though with the last, if it's something I really want to repost, on environmentalism for example, I intentionally go looking for a less biased source.)

Compare your statement here, however, to Lola's response on why my acknowledgement that Sanders was attacking the patriarchal foundations of rape fantasies has nothing at all in common with her acknowledgement that Sanders was attacking the patriarchal foundations of rape fantasies:

Understand this: you NEVER say the same things that I do, because your vile worldview isn't even in the same universe with mine. Someone who supports political oppression and persecution of women, who is anti-abortion, who thinks of other people's sexuality and lives as "disordered", and someone who "debates" in your fashion, is never making the same argument and saying the same things I do.

In other words, meaningful communication between Lola and me is impossible, precisely because she refuses to acknowledge any common idiom whatsoever. Not only is my world-view "vile" -- but because of it, anything and everything I say is automatically excluded from any acknowledgment. (We'll set aside the fact that her caricature of me is laughably inaccurate -- I just hope nobody takes it seriously and thinks that I really am what she makes me out to be.)

ETA 2: At this point, I need to put myself back into writer's seclusion if I'm to have any hope of making progress this summer -- I took last week off because of doctor's appointments, my son's birthday, and family visits; but now I must get back down to work. So, I will try to pop back in every day or two for a few minutes, but I really must force myself not to spend too much more time on this -- sadly, just when the conversation was getting good, too!

>60 nathanielcampbell: In other words, meaningful communication between Lola and me is impossible, precisely because she refuses to acknowledge any common idiom whatsoever.

You know, it's not about everyone just being nicer when they disagree. There are real and tangible differences --- even irreconcilable differences --- between the left and right points of view. That's what @AsYouKnow_Bob is getting at when he says that sometimes "one side is clearly wrong." (Think of a news program treating evolution and intelligent design as if it were a debate between equal but opposing theories). And what I think is behind @LolaWalser's comment that "You NEVER say the same things I do, because your vile worldview isn't even in the same universe with mine."

That position is not a failure of understanding, it is a basic statement of disagreement in fundamental principles whose implications have to be acknowledged.

The truth is, my stance is pretty close to Lola's. I don't feel called on to excuse a faith that regards homosexuality as disordered or that curtails women's control over their own sexual health in the name of some kind of natural morality. And I'm well aware that my personal take on religious freedom would severely curtail the way organized religion is allowed to operate in society, and place strict limits on what can be done in the name of "freedom of conscience" when it comes to actually hurting other people. I get that my world view is in some ways inimical to that of the person of faith. But at least I can acknowledge why it is so, and where those fundamental disagreements exist. I don't hear much of that kind of awareness from the people on the right who disagree with me.

When evaluating the news I tend to listen to how things are said before I pay too close attention to what is being said. If the language in the story is manipulative or emotive, it's a red flag that makes me immediately suspicious.

Bernie Sanders On Rape Essay: It Was ‘Something Like 50 Shades Of Grey’
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/31/bernie-sanders-on-rape-essay-it-was-something-...

"Look, this is a piece of fiction that I wrote in 1972, I think. That was 43 years ago. It was very poorly written. And if you read it, what it was dealing with was gender stereotypes. Why some men like to oppress women. Why other women like to be submissive, something like “50 Shades Of Grey.” Very poorly written, 43 years ago. What I am focusing on right now are the issues impacting the American people today. And that is what I will continue to focus on, and what I think the American people want to hear."

I think the piece is defensible, as I've said, but comparing his work to Fifty Shades of Grey is NOT how to defend it. and, although YMMV, I think he'd be laughed off the stage with 1,000 Bernie-as-Christian-Grey GIFs if he were a conservative and bumbling in this way.

>62 timspalding:

Well, you're going to think what you like, all the evidence to the contrary. (If liberals and "liberal media" were doing what the right wingers in the OP were doing, there'd be no need for you to invent scandals.)

I don't see why Sanders has to "defend" that piece at all. YOU are continuing to misread it, whether deliberately or not. Considering your ideas about what's "biologically rooted" and what's not, I don't see how you can miss noticing that the notion that women love to suffer, and men love to see women suffering, is still prevalent in the culture. But, crucially, you're ignoring his irony. He doesn't imagine just a sadist-masochist couple--he imagines a couple of church-going hypocrites. The reason--the literary reason for that image of a sadistic man and a masochistic woman--is that it gives the greatest contrast to the superficial appearance of their lives (good believers, good people).

Frankly, I don't think you know how to read fiction.

>61 southernbooklady: When evaluating the news I tend to listen to how things are said before I pay too close attention to what is being said. If the language in the story is manipulative or emotive, it's a red flag that makes me immediately suspicious.

This, absolutely. I hate being emotionally manipulated by anyone. That's why I don't read Slate or The Atlantic anymore, either. Report the facts objectively and let me make up my mind for myself.

>62 timspalding: I think he'd be laughed off the stage with 1,000 Bernie-as-Christian-Grey GIFs if he were a conservative and bumbling in this way.

Really? Why do you think that? Bumbling conservatives seem to be doing pretty well. They are all over the stage in my state. In fact, bumbling seems to be pretty much a job requirement for the Republican party.

Honestly, the poor Republican as victim theme is wearing very thin for me. You want to get out there and run and for public office? Well, be ready for the slings and arrows. We need to be able to criticize and even make fun of these people. They are not our lords and masters.

Besides, look at what Obama has had to endure these past 7 years.

Besides, look at what Obama has had to endure these past 7 years.

Well, he's got a Democratic party that suddenly grew very quiet on surveillance. Bush had to endure constant attacks on that score, but Obama has largely avoided them. (As I've said, I think both should be impeached for it.) See also Republican opposition to Clinton's wars in the Balkans, Republican silence about Bush spending on the Prescription Drug Benefit, etc. That's how it works. Within certain broad fences, politics in the US is less about where you stand than who's in power.

>55 AsYouKnow_Bob: You're putting words in my mouth that aren't there.

I did nothing of the kind.
Nothing in my #55 attributes "The "even-handed", "objective" standard " to ANY particular individual.
It's simply terrible journalism to assume that every citation MUST be balanced by something "on the other side".

>54 nathanielcampbell: Sadly, you're wrong. NewsBusters is a self-proclaimed right wing organ. ThinkProgress is similarly in their own words:

Statement Of Principles

ThinkProgress is editorially independent. All editorial decisions are made by the editors of ThinkProgress. Editorial decisions are not influenced by those who financially support the site, either through advertising or contributions to our parent organization.

ThinkProgress is not partisan. We produce critical reporting on Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike.

ThinkProgress is progressive. We believe the best way to advance progressive values is to accurately and thoroughly report on what is happening in America and the world.

ThinkProgress is committed to accuracy. We check our facts and seek multiple sources. Any errors will be promptly and transparently corrected.

Distinction is a basic tenet of reasoning. This is not a case of apples vs. apples at all. In nearly every journalistic standard, News Busters and ThinkProgress are polar opposites. I repeat, everyone knows, because conservatives tell us it's so, that the truth has a liberal bias.

Here's a head scratcher:

"Scott Walker said Monday he will sign a proposed 20-week abortion ban whether or not it includes an exemption for cases of rape or incest. . . .

"I think for most people who are concerned about that, it's in the initial months when they are most concerned about it," Walker said when asked about the exemption. "In this case, it's an unborn life, it's an unborn child, that's why we feel strongly about it. I'm prepared to sign it either way they send it to us." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-gov-walker-backs-20week-abo...

Scum.

>69 LolaWalser:
"Scum."

LOL.....I have been saying that for several years now. Repeatedly !