March 27, 2010
A classic example of journalistic objectivity brought to you by National Public Radio:
On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/ advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.
That last sentence is interesting. I’m considered “anti-abortion,” but my debate opponents are not considered “pro-abortion,” nor even “pro-abortion rights”? So, to put it logically, I’m publicly described as anti-X, but the polar opposite position cannot be described as pro-X. Sounds fair.
At least they are moving away from using the meaningless “pro-choice” label. While I was in law school, a fellow student in my Constitutional Law class once argued that the government wasn’t “pro-abortion,” it was neutral, and just allowed the “choice.” I responded, “let’s say the government permitted wanton murder of law students. Nobody is forced to murder law students. They are just permitted to murder law students. Anyone think the law is neutral to law students?” Nobody responded.
June 16, 2009
I find the following absolutely frightening:
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.
So the supposed American “watchdog” news media has now enlisted itself into the (official) service of the President. Not that this wasn’t the case before, but now it appears ABC News is doing it without pretense, with what it presumes is popular support for such a move (otherwise it would keep up the pretense of objectivity).
If the schools and the news media are both ultimately made the maidens of the American government, what will distinguish this government from fascism? The government will have put itself in charge of distributing official informationpropaganda, not to mention running formerly private companies. It doesn’t appear that there is much that Obama can do to outrage the common spoon-fed American, and the Republicans don’t have the power to do much to stop him (not that they don’t deserve a lot of the blame for creating this mess in the first place). The people will have to wait about 17 months before they get a chance to chime in on Obama’s aggressive government healthcare plan, and hopefully by then the opposing views will have been spread by the new “word of mouth” (the internet). It reminds one of the pre-corporate news media era in Colonial America.
President Clinton is probably seen as more intelligent than President George W. Bush by most of the mainstream media. However, he revealed his complete ignorance of basic biology in a recent interview on CNN, in which he claimed that stem cell research would be embraced by the American public as long as the embryos cannot “be fertilized and become little babies.” Click here for an article describing the interview; here is the video:
Now I’m no scientist, but I’m pretty sure I know that an embryo is by definition “fertilized”. I confirmed it in an online medical dictionary (“Embryo: The organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation from fertilization to, in humans, the beginning of the third month of prenancy. After that point in time, it is termed a fetus.”). An embryo is a living human life in a stage of development (after fertilization) toward becoming a “little baby”. To borrow the quote provided in the WND article linked above, Clinton said, “I think the American people believe it’s a pro-life decision to use an embryo that’s frozen that’s never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research.”
Despite the oxymoronic idea of an embryo that isn’t going to be fertilized, Clinton is on to something: maybe Americans would support stem cell research that didn’t harm early developing human lives? Indeed; they already did that under the supposedly anti-science Bush administration. In fact, if you click the link I just inserted, you’ll see that there are already non-embryonic (i.e. “unfertilized”) stem cells that “are genetically identical to patients and are generated without destroying human embryos”. Indeed, according to another article, those alternative stem cells “meet the defining criteria we originally proposed for human embryonic stem cells, with the significant exception that [those stem] cells are not derived from embryos”.
So, to summarize: under the Bush administration, there was federal funding of non-embryonic stem cell research that apparently has proved as valuable as the unethical embryonic stem cell research that kills human life. Even Bill Clinton sees the ethical problems with funding the killing of embryos, as evidenced by his confused comments in the video above, where he essentially admits that harming a “fertilized embryo” (which is redundant) would be unethical. When he says he thinks the American people would support stem cell research that does not support killing growing human life that could “become little babies”, he is right, and they already have.
Furthermore, there is not, and never was, a ban on stem cell research under the Bush administration; not even on embryonic stem cell research. It has always been legal. The only issue is that Bush would not allow federal tax payer money to be used for (most) embryonic stem cell research (Bush did permit funding for embryonic stem cell research on cell lines where the embryos had already been destroyed before Bush’s new policy was issued). The federal government continued to fund non-embryonic stem cell research throughout the Bush administration.
Thus, the only thing Obama is changing from the allegedly anti-science Bush administration is that he is taking federal tax payer money and directing it specifically at embryonic stem cell research. Quite the promotion of science. Perhaps another thing Obama could do to promote science is hand Mr. Clinton a ninth-grader’s biology text book.
One final note: the CNN reporter who interviewed President Clinton was a neurosurgeon. I find it amazing that he gave Clinton a complete pass on such an obvious gaffe. I have to think that if it was George W. Bush on the other end of the microphone, he gets laughed out of the room after the neurosurgeon tears him apart. Even if not, Clinton definitely should have been questioned about whether he finds stem cell research on living human beings (and cloning of living human beings) to be unethical. His answers probably would have hurt Obama’s plan, though. Perhaps the CNN neurosurgeon was worried about that?
March 6, 2009
Yesterday 55 Pro-ChoiceAbortion Senators voted against a measure that would “require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”
In other words, a majority of United States Senators apparently approve of funding forced abortions and sterilizations. Three Republicans joined 52 Democrats in defeating the amendment designed to stop funding involuntary abortions. Only three Democrats voted in favor of the amendment to stop funding such atrocities.
Exactly what about these organizations can possibly be considered beneficial for women, let alone pro “choice”? Obviously, “choice” involves at least two alternatives; forced abortion does not qualify. These women are essentially raped and their children are murdered. We fund this?
So can the mainstream American media continue to use the term “Pro Choice” to describe liberals while in the same breath using the term “Anti Abortion” to describe the conservatives on this issue? The label “Pro Choice” has become a farce, at least in the United States Senate.
February 16, 2009
A public television station in Columbus pulled a Christian television program from its lineup (it was a special to be aired only once) even though the Christian organization had already paid for the air time. What’s funny is that the station did so at the request of a few homosexuals to avoid offending them, but in the process proved the substance of the tv special. The special was about media bias and censorship against Christians. Something tells me the irony is lost on the station owners.
This isn’t the first time. A Catholic group paid for a Superbowl advertisement (the most coveted commercial airtime in the nation) timeslot, but the ad was subsequently yanked by television network NBC:
It’s obviously pro-life, but it never mentions abortion. Powerful stuff, even though the philosophical underpinnings of the ad have been questioned (I think the criticisms are unwarranted).