These extremist websites and blogs are not going to offer a balanced perspective. That is not to say I like what is going on in Gitmo. But going to extremist blogs is kind of like going to the candy store owner for dental advice.

Oh, plUeeeze....don't take me out of context. Your reference was this-




While you MAY have a point that there is some abuse happening somewhere's in the prison system, it does not have to be the norm. You make it sound like it is the norm, even in our civilian prisions. I am sorry, but I have a cilvian cousin in the california penal system...He reports to me, that there is no abusive behavior in a timely systematic fashion....at least on his watch and in his prison. That does not mean that there is not some ruff stuff that results when a prisoner freaks out and starts swinging, but that is an equal response for equal threat. It is NOT abuse. The guards do not abuse the prisoners, nor taunt the prisoners. So where you are getting this "abuse takes place in nearly every prison, civilian and military" standard, is beyond me. I stand by my statment and will clarify it somewhat...I expect better behavor from MY American Military ....

It is! I have been sitting in A.A. meetings for over 20 years. I have known many many people that have served in prison and anyone that doesn't think abuse in civilian prisons is the norm has no place in a discussion about prisons. The reason we don't have prison reform is because felons can't vote!

I am still waiting for the name of the country with a more ethical military than ours. What nation should be our example?

A battlefield is where soldiers fight. The detainees were picked up by soldiers where they had been fighting.

"It seemed to me. . . ."

But since there was no need to try any of them, it's essentially moot. They can be detained without trial. . .that whole "Treaty of Westphalia" thingy.

I don't consider Democracy Now to be an extremist program. Most of the things they uncover are eventually proven true. I admit sometimes they put a liberal/progressive slant on a news story, but I think I can see through that. I really don't care a lot whether a perspective is "balanced" or not. What I care about is the truth, the whole truth. And I usually find it there.

I agree with you. Just clarification. Prisoners can't vote, but many states refuse to let ex-prisoners vote, as well. They might make the determination based on what kind of crime was committed - or not.

I learned that on Democracy Now.

I do not take the position that extremest blogs are bad nor that there are sources of news which are 100% balanced. My point is that these extremist sources like Media Matters or Rush Limbaugh want to spin us and play us like a fiddle. And they are amazingly successful with many people. It behooves us to balance them out. If we go and read a far left blog we need to balance that out with a far right blog or talk radio or something.

Completely agree. I would say it of almost any subject. Read widely and read both pro and con.

I enjoy listening to people, and reading articles, on both the political right and the left.

I totally agree with you up to the last sentence, which perhaps needs a little clarification. I want to find out the truth, and that's not as simple as finding a balance between far right and far left smoke blowing.

I think the best way to know the *truth* is to go to the sources who are reporting mostly from primary sources, hopefully who have proven over time to be credible, sources who are trying to dig out the facts instead of just repeating someone else's news, who don't try to manipulate the facts to meet some agenda, and who don't op-ed a lot.

There are sources on the right and left who do a pretty good job of that (as well as international), but you have to find them and not just willy-nilly pick a left-nut and a right-nut and figure the truth is somewhere in between. (And I'm sure you were not insinuating that, but I'm just trying to clarify my thoughts.)

I think I probably had more trust in Tim Russert than any other journalist. Now he is dead and perhaps an era of trying to report the news objectively died with him.

Call me cynical but I don't believe there are many in the news media doing a good job of reporting the news. I am a news junky but listen to everyone with suspicion that they have an agenda they are trying to sell.

As far as the truth goes... Well, I suspect we all want to know the truth, perhaps Adventists more than the average person. But I am not so vain to think that if I heard the "truth" about a specific news story that I would be able to distinguish it as truth.

In the spirit of respect and friendship I will use Bravus as an example to contrast myself. Bravus has a list on accomplishments a bit longer than mine. He is successful and indisputably intelligent. Yet we can both read the same news story and come away from it with a different belief in the "truth" of what really happened. So one of us (perhaps both) is wrong or misunderstands the story. We can't both be right. I think it would be quite conceited of me to assume I am always right and he is always wrong. Certainly I cannot always be right and conversely I can't always be wrong either. So how do I know the "truth"? I don't. And there is no way for me to know when I am wrong and when I am right in regard to the understanding of current events.

I know what I believe. I can share with others why I believe it. And I reserve the right to be wrong and change my mind. But I see no way of being sure that I know the "truth" regarding news stories.

Finding spiritual truths is much easier because by faith I can trust the Bible. I can't put that kind of faith in any news outlet or journalist.