Recently in media bias Category

Hot off the presses:  Georgia's Christian Coalition is opposing a bill that will help prostituted children.  Yup, they are. 

Their efforts are in response to a coalition of child advocacy groups in Georgia that are working to reform the State's response to juvenile offenders, which includes juveniles who have been arrested for prostituted. (Oh, and yes, juveniles (those under the age of consent) are arrested for prostitution when discovered by law enforcement that they are willing to trade sex for money, drugs, housing, etc.) 

I'm hoping that the Left uses this to their advantage as much as possible.  Let's Fox News this shit-- I want a headline that reads as follows:  Christian Coalition Doesn't Care About Child Sex Victims.

Now I'm not a huge supporter of labeling prostituted youth as victims-- I'd rather think of them as survivors of the sex trade.  However, I'm completely in support for knocking down the Right as much as possible.  Let's face it: it's not like they play fair with the media.  Let's use some their own sleaziness for our advantage, shall we? 

For those of you who don't know, there has been some major movement around healthcare reform to further limit abortion rights. 

Before I start, a quick history lesson:
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, in which the Supreme Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable.'"  This case remains one of the most controversial cases to date.  Since Roe v. Wade the Court's reasoning has been severely warped and limited with further cases such as Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007 (upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, an Act that was not grounded in scientific reasoning and opposed by the vast majority of medical and scientific organizations). 

In 1977, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for a woman's abortion.  This Amendment unfairly punished those women who were recipients of welfare. Women's rights activists and poverty/welfare activists were furious. 

Despite the Hyde Amendment, a few states expanded their state Medicare coverage to cover the cost of an abortion.  Out of these states, some will fund any elective abortion, while others will only pay for an abortion if pregnancy resulted from rape or if the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman.   

In addition, many private health insurance companies provide coverage for abortions and abortion-related healthcare, including post-operation medications and examinations.  Kaiser-Permanente is one of the largest health insurance companies to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage for women-- they are also one of the largest powerhouses to lobby federal government to prevent setbacks for women's rights.  Yes, it might be driven by profit for them, but I'm excited to see that the pro-choice movement has at least one huge insurance company to fund these campaigns.

 

Now onto current events:
The heatlhcare reform debate in the House and Senate is being undermined by stupid Democrats.  First, there was the Stupak Amendment that passed the House.  The Stupak Amendment barred any insurance plan purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.  Essentially, this would prohibit any woman from getting her abortion covered by insurance.  This takes the Hyde Amendment to a whole new level! 

Not only is Representative Stupak a Democrat, but Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House, caved in and voted in support of the amendment to save the healthcare reform bill.  That rings a 10 on my what-the-fuck scale. 

But that's not the end.  Senator Nelson (D-Nebraska) has now proposed a Senate Amendment that is identical to the Stupak Amendment.  And guess who he partnered with to create such a gem of a legislation-- our old friend, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the same Republican Senator who used the Senate Finance Committee in early November to pass a bill that would effectively restore $50 million for abstinence-only education.

That's it-- I've had it with the Democrats in office.  I know I say this often, but I really don't see any difference now between the Republicans and Democrats in office.   The only reason I have caved and voted Democrat in presidential elections is to protect a woman's right to choose.  But now I can't even rely on that.  Fuck, even our President spoke about healthcare in such ambiguous terms so as to not make any public statement for or against abortion rights.  I just can't deal with this. 

Next election, I refuse to vote Democrat.  As someone who has always campaigned for presidential candidates (and yes, I phone banked for Kerry and then for Hillary and then for Obama), I refuse, REFUSE, to help elect another Democrat to office.  The only issue I will fight for is no longer on their radar.

I urge you to take action to stop the Nelson-Hatch Amendment.  Let's not undermine women's healthcare more than we already have!  Click here to sign a petition and contact your Senators! The vote is TOMORROW, Tuesday, December 8, 2009, so act quickly!

P.S. I would have put a link to a NY Times article about the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, but for some reason they haven't published a story on it yet.  Add tag for media bias.    
 

This past Wednesday, Time Magazine published this article  that portrayed Obama as scaling back Bush's AIDS initiative.  Now before I start on my rant about how incorrect this article is, I have to admit that PEPfAR was a pretty neat thing; a commitment to spend more than $15 billion to combat HIV/AIDS over five years is great.  But I refuse to ooze thanks to former President Bush like most world leaders did at the time-- I do not feel the need to congratulate our former President in the same way I would give a high-five to a two year old for eating without getting peas in his hair.  PEPfAR was a long time coming, and it was the least he could do after screwing our nation in his eight years of presidency.     

In our world today, over 33.4 million are HIV positive, but only 4 million have access to HIV or AIDS treatment. In the U.S. alone, it is estimated that 1 million people are HIV positive, but that only a third of those individuals actually know their diagnosis.  In fact, between 2001-2005, HIV transmission rate increased 17% in people ages 50 and older.  Although black and Hispanic women represent 24% of all women in the United States, these two groups account for 82% (almost 9 million) of the estimated total AIDS diagnoses for women in 2005.

Knowing these facts, let's take a look at what former President Bush did for our nation.  Oh that's right, one of his first acts in office was to institute the Global Gag Rule, a policy that prohibited federal funding for abortion services.  Although it was limited to abortions, the Global Gag Rule effectively shut down many family planning operations worldwide, as many family planning clinics were in some way associated with providing for abortion care.  Result? Most women in developing nations who relied on U.S. funded family planning programs had nowhere to go-- no maternal health, no reproductive health screening or treatment, and yes, no access to STD or HIV/AIDS treatment or testing. 

Then there was also the infamous birth of Title V, an Act that would ensure that federal dollars only be used for abstinence-only education.  I can easily create a whole new blog on abstinence-only education, so I'll make this short: abstinence-only education is ineffective through and through.  Telling youth to save themselves for marriage is not a a life-long message.  First, this mantra seems to forget that even when you are married, you can get STDs/HIV-- as far as I know, marriage does not equal fidelity. (*cough* Sen. Mark Sanford (R-SC) *cough*) Second, it only preaches to those, who at the time, identify as heterosexual.  Sadly, same-sex marriage has not been accepted in many states.  And, finally, abstinence-only education has been criticized for giving incorrect information to our youth; for instance, informing school children that condoms are more ineffective than they are effective. 

During his presidency, Bush also blocked federal funding from needle-exchange programs.  It wasn't until 2008 when Democrats reached a super majority that federally funding was restored to needle-exchange programs. 

Yay President Bush-- you destroyed so many worthwhile programs, but made up for it by creating PEPfAR!  It's like you're curious George: you always come through in the end.  Oh, and P.S., good job for also getting through that sentence without stumbling!

Now let's look at our current President.  One of Obama's first acts in office was repealing the Global Gag Rule.  Then he abolished Title V in an effort to put federal funding back into comprehensive sexual health education (although Sen. Hatch (R-UT) was able to pass an amendment through the Senate finance committee that would restore $50 million to abstinence-only education).  Next, he lifted the travel ban for HIV positive individuals, so that the U.S. could be an integral player in the fight against HIV/AIDS.  And finally, this past month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended that Medicare coverage extend to cover HIV screening and treatment.  The coverage was extended in early November, which will provide HIV screening and coverage for youth, pregnant women and individuals over age age of 65.  

So, Time, I just have to ask-- what were you thinking when you published that article?

A commitment to end HIV/AIDS is a political movement.  It means acknowledging that people are sexual beings and openly discussing sexuality in a way that would encourage healthy sexual activity and create treatments for those who have been infected with STDs.  It means not blaming someone for engaging in "risky" sexual activity, or blaming someone for addiction to intervenous drugs.  It means that we are looking for equality in the most basic human function: the right to livelihood. 

In addition, when you commit to combating AIDS, it means that are asking for universal healthcare for anyone regardless of age, race, gender or sexuality.  It means that you are asking that individuals receive the treatment necessary to survive, or that they receive the education they need so that they can make well-informed decisions.  You are asking for an overhaul of our private healthcare system and our educational initiatives.  This is not a feel good movement-- this should be something that makes you upset that in 2009, almost a good 20 years after our government began to recognize the AIDS epidemic, that only bare minimum has been done to combat this infectious disease.

I fully believe that if Bush had not been our president, we could have shaved 8 years off of that 20 year mark.  Instead, Obama now has to make up for Bush's horrible policies and then some.  Let's credit Obama for what he's doing to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic...and then demand that he do even more.

Hi, my name is Bob, and I’m a gratefully-recovering CNN-addict.

Hi, Bob.

I really wanted to name this post: wtf is wrong with the US media, part III, but I thought it was getting stale.  I just really can’t think of anything else to say.

First of all, two of the top stories on cnn.com are about sick/dead celebrities’ children.  Yes, it’s sad that your son has just been diagnosed with some rare disease/has died .  Thousands of people die every day, but we don’t hear about them. Thousands die because of American and foreign corporations that are raping the earth, but we don’t hear about them.  Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in the war, but we don’t hear about them.  I still do not understand why celebrities are considered news.  Perhaps the only time a celebrity should be in the news would be a headline reading: “Madonna Receives Nobel Prize for Physics Due to Discovery of Quantuum Worm Holes in Deep Space”.  You know, something significant.   

Second of all, I was reading this article that was waxing poetic about the possibilities of politics in 2009.  Part of it discussed the deflation of the Republican party, which is of importance since it is now the opposition party.  And then, then the article states: If the Republican Party is not effective, does the national media become the opposition voice?

The nation media has COMPLETELY CEASED to have the ability to become the opposition voice!  When the current administration was banging the war drums, the media rolled over and served as a megaphone for the Beltway.  During the entire primary and election season, the media parroted and sound-clipped the trail, but didn’t do any significant vetting or provide citizens with coverage of any third party candidates.  The media has ceased to be the ‘fourth estate’, and no longer can be used as a tool to keep other branches of government in check.  “Does the national media become the opposition voice?” Dream on, CNN.  If you think you are capable of becoming a true voice of opposition, I’m capable of growing a second head.  Seriously.  How can they even delude themselves?  The nation media is stuck in the entertainment business, when they should be in the journalism business.

And, me, like Bob, can’t stop going to these sites and watching/listening these shows. Does it make me a more educated soapboxer, or is it the worst thing I could possibly be doing?  

I was watching this interview of Utah Phillips, late folk singer/activist.  He was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! If you get a chance, do check out that interview; Utah Phillips is fun to listen to.  Here’s what he said in response to a question about the media.

UTAH PHILLIPS: “Let’s see, you started out with what media has done to people. You know that better than I do. That’s why you do what you do. See, you’re doing an alternative media. And if we play our cards right and have enough time, then pretty soon it won’t be alternative media anymore. But then, we have a thorough understanding—don’t we, Amy—that they fight with money and we fight with time, and they’re going to run out of money before we run out of time. So we’ll just be patient, and you do your work, and I’ll do mine, and we’ll catch up and overtake them.

It’s a damn shame, though, that we have to be alternative. But then, we’re in a capitalist environment, we’re in a capitalist system that’s built on—that’s built on the least commendable features of the human psyche, greed and envy, rather than the best. We in community radio, in pirate radio, in alternative music distribution, we reach for the best in people, you know, we don’t—not lowest common denominators. And we are building a new world within the shell of the old.

I don’t feel pessimistic about that at all. There’s simply too many good people right here in this room, too many good people on the street, close to the street, doing too many good things for me to afford the luxury of being pessimistic. I’m going to—I’ll tell people that tonight, damn it. I’m glad it came up. If I look at the world from the top down, from FOX, God help me, or CNN or—there ought to be a CNN-Anon to wean people from that idiocy. If I look at it from the top down, I get seriously depressed. The world’s going to hell in a wheelbarrow. But if I walk out the door, turn all that off, and go with the people, whatever town I’m in, who are doing the real work down at the street level, like I say, there’s too many good people doing too many good things for me to let myself be pessimistic about that. I’m hopeful, can’t live without hope. Can you?”

So I logged onto CNN.com in the middle of the night, and switched over to the "international" addition.  Did you know that Japan is in a recession, too?  I'm always shocked (well not really) at the difference between US news and international news.  No wonder we're all so ignorant over here, when our news headlines are dominated by regurgitated garbage, and other nations get real news.  Even on CNN.com!  CNN is an American news network.  There is no reason that the headlines for the international scene shouldn't be the same thing that you see when you click on CNN.com!  Like they just know that they can spoon feed us garbage.

I had the great luck to be in downtown Chicago the night that Sen. Barack Obama was widely and fairly elected to the office of the President of the United States, which is probably the crappiest job anyone could accept at this moment in time. For that, I offer my congratulations and condolences.

There was an air of energy, especially as the news was good. People were smiling, waving flags, pallin' around with tourists (ha. ha.). Some people got messages on their cell phones (I must have gotten 20), while others excitedly asked complete strangers what the electoral college count was. All the cops were out, streets were blocked, and from where I was enjoying a cocktail on the 96^th floor of the John Hancock building above the twilight, Chicago was beautiful.

I, of course, didn't vote this election. To be honest, I was one of the undecided. I felt that both of the candidates had their good and bad points. I think that McCain is not as Bush-like as he was made out to be, but shot himself in the foot when he chose Palin for a running mate. I think that Obama is not as socialist as he was made out to be, but I had a few contentions with him as well.

I'm feeling increasingly discontent with a two-party system that pretends to be dichotomous but is actually centrist. Neither of the two major parties fits my ideals with any kind of accuracy, so I'm growing weary of these red/blue choices and conservative/liberal ideologies. But, thankfully, this two year election is finally over. I have to admit that I'm feeling a little empty. A little on the fringe of the excitement that radiated like a doppler from Grant Park last night.

I am still overwhelmed by how excited people were. People were crying. In my short history, I don't remember anyone crying for the election of a President in a good way. People were literally hopping up and down. People were screaming and they were hugging their friends and family.

A part of me was very skeptical of this reaction. Like the wallflower in the corner of a party that doesn't quite fit in with the scene. I think it's very wonderful that Obama is our first black and only minority president. I can't believe we've been stuck with middle-aged WASPs since Washington (excluding Kennedy, who I guess was a WASC). I hope that his nomination to the presidency will add to the dialogue and healing of racial barriers in this country. I think it's wonderful that George W. Bush will finally be going back to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, to cut wheat or eat beef jerky or whatever he does. Who wouldn't jump for joy at the fact that a man who has supported and bred one failed policy after another, who really should have never been elected once, let alone twice, will finally be moving out of the White House. (Please, Mr. Bush, stay away from politics. And no lectures or books, either.)

Now, here comes my very large "however."

I am very concerned that this excitement places the entire American voting population (highest ever) in a very precarious position. Excitement like this creates high expectations, mandates, and hopes. And we, as a public, cannot expect one man and his administration to alone solve our problems. I do not want the energized electorate to become discouraged when change does not come quickly. The American voters tend to have short memories, and shorter patience. Please give President Obama a chance. He is cursed with what may be the worst handover in the history of this nation.

I am very concerned that our government will remain highly partisan, divisive, and bound by our false R/D dichotomy (for more on my feelings on this, please see my previous post, "where's my think tank?"). The downfall and party backlash of the Republicans, if you'll remember, happened when the Republicans held a majority in all branches of the government. This is exactly what our forefathers did not want to happen.

I am very concerned that the two-party system will continue to restrict the flow of ideas, policy, and social activism that is needed in modern times. Consider this quote from a recurring third-party candidate, Ralph Nader. "It would be a three-way race if I'd been in the debates," Nader said Tuesday in an interview. If the networks and newspapers had covered him, he said, his poll numbers would have gone up and the Commission on Presidential Debates would have had to include him. "We documented the two-party dictatorship, we've won ballot access and we've educated a lot of people about what politics should be about," he said. Nader was on the ballot in 45 states and the District of Columbia (this material was borrowed from this article).

I'm not saying you have to vote for third-party candidates just because they are third party candidates. But please stop ignoring politicians that don't have an 'R' or 'D' behind their name. Hell, maybe Barack Obama doesn't really deserve the D behind his name, and did it out of a necessity to win.

Here's a dream I wrote about a month ago:

I met Barack Obama in my dream last night!  I really liked him, and we were at some charity fundraiser. Oddly, there weren't a lot of people there.  I really was conflicted on who to vote for, being that my views aren't represented by either major party.  I didn't get a chance to ask him my question, but I saw my political science teacher from high school and told him to ask Obama this: "If you get elected, what processes or policies will you change to ensure that third party candidates can legitimately and seriously run for political office?" 

I hope that Obama will help do that.  That's the change I'm looking for.