Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (676126)	3/21/2005 9:44:32 AM
From: Mr. Palau	Respond to of 769670

Show me which GOP Senator denies it was circulated among them.

To: KLP who wrote (676126)	3/21/2005 3:04:39 PM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

GOP Schiavo ‘talking points’ leaked in full An insider liberal Capitol Hill blog has printed the alleged Republican Party talking points on Terri Schiavo referenced by ABC News, RAW STORY has learned. The blog, D.C. Inside Scoop, has been at the forefront of revealing details about the Republican congressional caucus, and has been referenced in the Capitol Hill daily, Roll Call. S. 529., The Incapacitated Person’s Legal Protection Act * Teri Schiavo is subject to an order that her feeding tubes will be disconnected on March 18, 2005 at 1p.m. * The Senate needs to act this week before the Budget Act is pending business, or Teri’s family will not have a remedy in federal court. * This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue. * This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida - has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats. * The bill is very limited and defines custody as “those parties authorized or directed by a court order to withdraw or withhold food, fluids, or medical treatment.” * There is an exemption for proceeding “which no party disputes, and the court finds, that the incapacitated person while having capacity, had executed a written advance directive valid under applicably law that clearly authorized the withholding or withdrawal of food or fluids or medical treatment in the applicable circumstances.” * Incapacitated persons are defined as those “presently incapable of making relevant decisions concerning the provision, withholding or withdrawal of food fluids or medical treatment under applicable state law.” * This legislation ensures that individuals like Teri Schiavo are guaranteed the same legal protections as convicted murderers like Ted Bundy. rawstory.com

To: KLP who wrote (676126)	3/22/2005 8:06:46 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

I just don't understand why it's ok for liberals to use political issues to further their agenda and appeal to certain voting groups, but it's considered unfair and in bad taste for conservatives to do the same. Especially if some of those groups happen to be religious. I hope Mr. Palau reads this,and takes it into consideration. M Slanted Journalism is Everywhere by Pat Sajak Posted Mar 21, 2005 I awoke Sunday morning wanting to know what was happening in the Terri Shiavo saga, and here’s what one of the major news services had to say: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush cut short a holiday to return to Washington and be ready to sign a bill that may keep a brain-damaged woman alive in a case pitting Christian conservatives against right-to-die activists. That sentence is just one of dozens of examples you can find almost daily of what’s wrong with the press. First of all, it is inaccurate. The notion that Christian Conservatives are the only ones on one side of this issue is ludicrous. Most of the discussions I’ve had this past weekend happened to be with Jewish friends who were appalled by the notion of starving an innocent woman to death. There are millions of people on the side of life in this case who are neither Christian nor Conservative, but it is a convenient bit of stereotypical shorthand that the press uses with regularity. Second, if the Christians are Conservative, why aren’t the right-to-die activists Liberal? There is a very limited spectrum that the press generally uses to describe a person’s politics. There are Conservatives and then there is everyone else. “ Conservative Senator so-and-so debated Senator what’s-his-name today.” In the world of the press, a Liberal rarely exists unless he or she is so identified by those hateful Conservatives. In the Reuter’s example I cited, why not “Christian activists” or “right-to-live proponents”? No, they are Christian Conservatives, get it? Christians (and we know how closed-minded they are) and Conservatives (scary, huh?). The other side favors the right-to-die (giving people rights is always noble) and they are activists (caring, involved people). No contest here. Neanderthals vs. The Enlightened. I have a little hobby of collecting these examples of subtle bias, and they are very easy to find. The problem is that you appear to be nit-picking when you point them out; however, these kinds of ingrained prejudices are endemic. One Senator merely states a fact, while the Conservative Senator “claims” something. Unnecessary and prejudicial adjectives are used with abandon, usually to the detriment of the more Conservative side. Alarming statistics about global warming, spousal abuse, homelessness or dozens of other issues are given without challenge if they come from activists. The challenge comes only when those issues are discussed from a more Conservative point of view. (“Conservative Senator Smith claimed homelessness is dropping, but the Center for Homelessness reports…”) Sadly, I don’t believe most of this is done deliberately. I, being the magnanimous guy I am, think that the people who write this stuff are, for the most part, honorable journalists who genuinely try to write without prejudice. The problem is that when you write about something with which you agree there is no need to explain it or characterize it. It is only when writing about those “other” people and their take on the issues that you have to add some clarification because they are so out of step with what you know and believe. Who could possibly be against the right to die? Why, it’s those Christian Conservatives. As long as mainstream journalists share a similar view of the world, that world can never be reported “objectively”. And that is why the so-called alternative media have had such an impact. But don’t these bloggers also have a slanted view of the issues? Of course they do, but, in most cases, they acknowledge it and the consumers can factor in that slant when they read. When you check out something called “The View from the Right”, you know what you’re getting, but when you read The New York Times, you think you’re getting “All the news that’s fit to print”. I don’t suggest for a moment that people should completely give up the mainstream media for the alternative types. I merely suggest that all of them be viewed with a discerning eye and a recognition that they all slant the news to one degree or another. It’s just that some are less forthcoming about it. Of course, that’s merely the claim of a Conservative entertainer. Copyright © 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.