Suggest me commentary from both sides of the spectrum

It's fairly common for people to become overly entrenched in their views due to them tending to only pay attention to commentary and analysis that coincides with what they believe already - a form of confirmation bias, I suppose. The P&C forums have done a good job of breaking me of the habit, but I'd really like to expand my horizons a bit further. Does anyone have suggestions for good sources of analysis on both sides of the political spectrum? I don't think that my brain could cope with anything too hardcore... something at about the level of Dan Carlin's podcasts would be ideal.

For the record, I'm from a fairly left-wing background, but have drifted towards the centre in my mid-20s. In other words, most other Australian and NZ grad students see me as an overly cynical conservative, while by American standards I'd be a raging socialist.

It is a shame that Penn Jillette no longer has a radio show. You will be ahrd pressed to find a more morally liberal and politically conservative person on this earth.

However. I think a good place to start would be NPR Wait Wait Don't Tell me. As well as It's All Politics. This American Life also delves into political as well as event news. They did several shows on the bank and healthcare crisis.

I tend to shade more to specific interest popdcasts, that often tread into politics. George Hrab's Geologic Podcast covers a wide berth of topics, some hit the political spectrum. The Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast has hit on several major public and political interest tipics-vaccinations, evolution in schools, as well as garden variety skepticism regarding UFOs, psychics, ghosts.

This Week in Tech, surprisingly, gets into political issues. Typically those concerning tech, of course. But issues of net neutrality, government and ISP spying, regulation, are really hot button issues.

The greatest success of the polarizing media is to convince us that there are only two sides. Sometimes, this false dichotomy makes me jealous of parliamentary governments and the way they have many parties, rather than just two.

On top of that, even if we were to pretend that (in any given country) there are only two sides in politics, there's the use of 'left' and 'right'.

Now I admit that may have been a pretty good description of the 1790s French parliamentary groupings (although I think there was also a middle group - the 'mountain"?), but it's a big stretch to apply to anyone today.

If you can afford it, a subscription to the Economist will grant you access to the audio edition as well. The added advantage is you can get the audio edition earlier than the print one. Its really not as heavy as you think it is and its briefings are just fascinating political analysis. I've had my issues with it in the past but there is none better had providing you with in depth analysis from around the world on a weekly basis. On top of that the actors reading the articles do it in a fashion that is just a pleasure to listen to.

That said it had an article about Bobby Kotick a little while back that I laughed my way through. And not in a good way.

Free Talk Live definitely qualifies as neither end of the spectrum. They don't like the right or the left.

Thanks, I'll check out those suggested.

MikeSands wrote:

On top of that, even if we were to pretend that (in any given country) there are only two sides in politics, there's the use of 'left' and 'right'.

Now I admit that may have been a pretty good description of the 1790s French parliamentary groupings (although I think there was also a middle group - the 'mountain"?), but it's a big stretch to apply to anyone today.

Fair point. I suppose I'm just after a range of viewpoints, since I'm trying to avoid only listening to stuff that I already agree with.

Sonicator wrote:

Fair point. I suppose I'm just after a range of viewpoints, since I'm trying to avoid only listening to stuff that I already agree with.

Don't take my short rant as saying there's anything wrong with what you were after in the first place.

Reason is a libertarian-leaning site. I don't read them a lot, but they've seemed both intelligent and non-dogmatic in what I've gone through.

I don't want to give them an actual link here, because they're weird and scary, but Little Green Footballs is one of the centers of the foaming-nutjob right wing. I find the place completely vile, even though I'm rather conservative in some areas. You can find them on Google, but have a cloth handy to wipe out the inside of your monitor after reading.

Malor wrote:

I don't want to give them an actual link here, because they're weird and scary, but Little Green Footballs is one of the centers of the foaming-nutjob right wing. I find the place completely vile, even though I'm rather conservative in some areas. You can find them on Google, but have a cloth handy to wipe out the inside of your monitor after reading.

LGF seems to be as screedy as ever, with the martyr complex still in full effect, but I don't know that your characterization still holds. I just glanced at the front page over there and I noted lots of anti-Palin, anti-Malkin, anti-creationist, anti-white supremacist, anti-Religious Right stuff.

LGF has been undergoing a change, according to some right-side observers. Power Line might be a better source for foam-at-the-mouth-breathing conservatism.

While I would note that I am no fan of birthers and think that people who bring racist and/or “Obama is Hitler” signs to a tea party are morons, it’s also worth noting that the content on LGF is functionally little different than you would find on any liberal blog. They hate conservative bloggers. He hates conservative bloggers. They hate Christians. He hates Christians. They hate the tea parties; he hates the tea parties. If you took the names off of everything and put the content of LGF in with 9 liberal blogs, I seriously doubt that the average person from the netroots could tell the difference. There’s not even much of that pesky anti-radical Islam content to get in the way any more. That’s just an afterthought on what used to be the best anti-radical Islam blog on the planet.

That just goes to show how interesting the idea of right-wing/conservative has become in the US. It's part of what I'm interested in too - the difference in viewpoints between the financial and social conservatives.

*Found this in a student file yesterday.

Preserving Network Neutrality

The network neutrality of the internet should be preserved for the citizens of the United States of America by the Federal Government for the very reasons that the open sharing of information by the public over the internet has resulted in revolutionary innovation, that astute government officials who have either been elected or appointed by the people of the United States are currently supporting network neutrality through legislation, that the escalation of network discrimination policies enacted by competing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is inimical to the free market exchange of information over the internet and demands proper regulation.
The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 or H.R. 3458 (Senate, 2009), is a bill currently being reviewed by the House Committee of Energy and Commerce, the first part of the bill identifies the spectrum of issues regarding public internet needs and specifically references network neutrality. In Section 2 the bill openly states its support:

A network neutrality policy based upon the principle of nondiscrimination and consistent with the history of the Internet’s development is essential to ensure that Internet services remain open to all consumers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and providers of lawful content, services, and applications. (Sec.2. par.11)

The bill further acknowledges the problems that internet users have had to face with broadband Internet Service Providers (Sec. 12. 9b.). These problems were created over time and necessitated the legislation and regulatory changes of today.
The Federal Communications Commission attempted to update the Communications Act of 1934 (Congress, 1934) and adopt a cohesive network regulation policy towards the internet in 2005 but merely stated a general open set of rules that large broadband companies quickly learned to exploit. (FCC, 2005)
For example, in 2008 the Federal Communications Commission found Comcast Corporation guilty of installing equipment throughout its network that monitored the internet connections of millions of its customers and selectively blocked the legal transfer of peer-to-peer transfer of information over applications such as BitTorrent because it posed a perceived threat to their Video-On-Demand service. (FCC, 2008)
It is important to note that these practices involving Comcast were brought to the FCC’s attention by two internet based entities: Free Press, a nonprofit organization that promotes media reform and Public Knowledge, an internet based public interest group that works to defend the rights of digital consumers. This action by both parties adds validity both to themselves and to the already rapidly growing community of online organizations and sites that contain publicly posted blogs and news information under the term ‘Net Neutrality’.
Art Brodsky, the Director of Communications for Public Knowledge, wrote a scathing blog entitled “AT&T Censors Pearl Jam -- Another Reason for Net Neutrality,” a year earlier after the company did just that to the popular rock band Pearl Jam during a live Webcast when singer Eddie Vedder supplanted “George Bush- leaving this world alone” during a rather expressive version of Pink Floyd’s ‘Another Brick in the Wall,’ at Lollapalooza in 2007. Brodsky posted the blog on August 8th of 2007- just a year and twelve days before the FCC filed their Order against Comcast Corporation. (Brodsky, 2007)
As a result of similar carnivorous business practices by companies like Comcast Corp. and AT&T a multitude of people in the internet community and the general public became more familiar with the term ‘Net Neutrality’ as a political movement that seeks to halt those practices that threaten the free and open exchange of digital information. One of those individuals who was already in support of Net Neutrality at that time was Tim Berners-Lee the creator of the World Wide Web. Berners-Lee wrote a book entitled “Weaving the Web: The Original Design and the Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web,” in which he describes how open access to the information on the internet helped him create the culturally revolutionary World Wide Web (Berners-Lee 2000). He also posted his blogs to the then emerging Web 2.0 culture. In one early post he states his concern for the U.S. internet community:

When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission. Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going to end in the USA. (Berners-Lee, 2006)

Presently the Federal Government is reacting with the proposal of H.R. 3458 and the FCC is adopting new policies to restrict broadband companies from disrupting the flow of open information over internet networks. On September 21st of this year Chairman of the FCC Julius Genachowski stated that he would seek to provide open access to the internet no matter how a user chose to access it and that rules would be put into place by the FCC that insures all internet users protection against further nefarious business practices. The Chairman also pointed out that in 1969 a governmentally funded project called ARPNET performed its first successful test of what would become the internet as a result of open information sharing and that the event was in his own words, “the most transformational communications breakthrough since the printing press.” (FCC,2009)
Presently many members of the online community see the much needed promise of change in FCC Policy and Federal Legislation as crucial to the preservation of network neutrality and the further promise of innovation it provides. Even industry giant Google is in favor of network neutrality and currently has posted a page to help citizens learn about the issue (2009). Free Press the same group that helped facilitate the halting of illicit conduct by Comcast Corporation in 2008 has created a site, savetheinternet.com. The website encourages the public to contact their State and Federal Government representatives in support of the FCC and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009.
The internet as guarded by the principled decisions currently being made by the Federal Government towards net neutrality will not result in the regulation of the user but in insuring that broadband companies provide the internet to the American public as an accessible utility and not a commodity to be exploited. (Senate, 2009)

Works Cited

Berners-Lee, Tim. Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web. New York: Harper, 2000
Berners-Lee, Tim. Net Neutrality: This is serious. 21 June 2006. MIT Online. n.d. Web. Sept. 27 2009

Brodsky, Art. “AT&T Censors Pearl Jam -- Another Reason for Net Neutrality.” Public Knowledge (2007) Web. Sept. 27. 2009
United States. Federal Communications Commission. Policy Statement 05-151.
(Washington: GPO, 2005)
United States. Federal Communications Commission. Commission Orders Comcast to End Discriminatory Network Management Practices. Press Release. Aug. 1. 2008. Web. Sept. 26 2009
United States. Federal Communications. Commision 08-183 Order Filed Against Comcast Corporation.
(Washington: GOP, 2008) Adopted: 1 Aug. 2008. Released: 20 Aug. 2008
Unites States. Federal Communications Act of 1934. (47 U.S.C. 151) . 73rd Cong. 19 June. 1934
(Washington: GOP)
United States. Federal Communications Commission. Prepared Remarks of Chairman Julius Genachowski “"Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity" 21, Sept. 2009 Web. Sept. 26

United States. Senate. H.R. 3458 Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 111th Cong., 1st Session. (Washington: GPO, 2009). Submitted July. 31. 2009.
A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users. Google. Web. Sept. 29. 2009

Public Knowledge. Web. Sept. Sept. 27 2009

Free Press Basics , Web. Sept. 27 2009

You can read Reddit if you want the liberal version of LGF. So help you god if you post an opposing viewpoint.

I've found Stratfor to be a pretty good source. You can sign up to get their free emails without paying, which will get you some good content (and spam you occasionally with requests to buy into the main system). I sometimes disagree with their strategic analysis, but they are nobody's fools.