"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:31:44 -0500, "P Fritz"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:49:15 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:28:45 -0500, DSK wrote:

And it has nothing to do with political bias.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4501646.stm


JohnH wrote:
You may be right, but I think you lean left:

You "think" anybody who doesn't drool themselves to sleep at
night over a picture of President Bush holding hands with
Jesus is leaning to the left.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150663,00.html


Interesting article, thanks for the link... definitely gets
the point across about the health issues... but was this
covered on their TV news? Or does this further prove my
point that the best info is to be had by *reading*?

Funny you should mention this Doug. The other day, I was commenting on
an image on a photography group I have frequented for a long time and
used some imagery from mythology, in particular Campbell's "Thousand
Faces" to make my point. Nobody knew the reference or ever understood
it for that matter.

I have noticed more and more that the broad based reading you would
think "artists" would be doing isn't being done and that if you make a
literary reference, it's usually met with stone silence - unless the
reader is around my age (60 +/-).

I have often thought that one reason that we have the political
problems we have is that not enough people are well read enough or
spend their time reading that which is understandable to them, rather
than stretching their imaginations and intellects to at least try and
attain another level of enlightenment.

Later,

Tom

This study would indicate that only about 41% of the population read
the
newspaper, and only about
8% spend an hour or more reading the paper. Most get their news from
TV.

I stopped receivin the newspaper over a year ago.......I got tired of the
constant socialist slant (and that was the "conservative" paper in town.)
The sports coverage sucked, unless it was the hometown teams, and it
ended
up more ads than anything. I have found I can get the all the major
editorials on line, (realclearpolitics is a good one for that) as well
as
better sports coverage...and the links typically will give you further in
depth info. I watch the TV news only for the "breaking" stories....and
most
of the time it is comical seeing the "journalists" trying to cover a
story
that they have no idea what they are talking about.

Which is exactly what I was talking about tailoring your reading to
reflect your personal beliefs and not reading or taking a broad
approach to understanding issues. If you only look at one side, you
can never really truly understand issues.

I have a daily routine in which I read liberal/conservative blogs, I
read/scan the NYT, Wash Post, Wash Times and WS Journal and keep the
TV news local. In the evening, I pick, at random, one conservative
and one liberal blog to read in it's entirety including commentary,
then after doing whatever hobby has my interest for that day, I spend
at least an hour reading non-fiction and a half hour fiction before I
hit the rack.

Later,

Tom

The reason I like realclearpolitcs is that it links to a smorgasboard of
edtitorials and news articles across the country.
Don't go assuming on me. ;-)

I love reading rags like Smithsonian, Nat. Geo, and a few trade ones, I
just never had the time or desire for much fiction.