.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
EIB Bumpersticker

Friday, July 21, 2006


Attacking Non-UH liberalism 'NOW Gang Opposes Child Custody Protection Act' (Sick NOW gals label it 'Teen Endangerment Act')

In a recently released NOW e-mail entitled "Oppose the Teen Endangerment Act; Senate to Vote Very Soon," the NOW gang just continue to wipe their snail trails into the corner.

In a day when young teen girls are suspended for taking an unauthorized aspirin on school grounds, the NOW gang, or NAGs as Conservatives like to call them, would like your senators to vote against protecting young teen girls from having a totally invasive procedure such as an abortion. All of this without their parents permission of course.

The NAGs can't even bear to call it by its rightful name - The Child Custody Protection Act (S. 403), instead the sick bitches prefer to label it the "The Teen Endangerment Act" because it would probably cause more teen girls to be grounded or smacked upside the head by their parents. If the Senate passes the bill it would more than likely go to the President's desk after conference.

The NAGs further complain that "the current version restricts a young woman's ability to obtain an abortion outside of the home state even if the closest city is across state lines." Not to mention that a 3-day waiting period would be put in place and it has criminal penalties for helping young teens cross state lines to obtain an abortion, unless "she has met her home state's parental involvement laws."

The NAGs claim that the bill "does not protect teens" and that it "jeopardizes young women's health." Of course all perfectly good BS, since the health of the fetus is not taken into question at all. I believe as many people believe that if a young teen is healthy enough for sex, she is healthy enough to have that bundle of responsibility.

I'm glad that America is slowly wising to the crazy phrase "health of the mother" when an abortion is involved. And get this. The NAGs also contend that S. 403 "will actually interfere with how parents choose to raise their children." Yeah, now maybe parents will teach their young teen girls to wait until marriage to have sexual relations.

Screw the libs!

You could be forgiven for thinking the television images in the experiment were from 2006. They were really from 1982: Israeli forces were clashing with Arab militants in Lebanon. The world was watching, charges were flying, and the air was thick with grievance, hurt and outrage.

There was only one thing on which pro-Israeli and pro-Arab audiences agreed. Both were certain that media coverage in the United States was hopelessly biased in favor of the other side.

The endlessly recursive conflict in the Middle East provides any number of instructive morals about human nature, but it also offers a psychological window into the world of partisan behavior. Israel's 1982 war in Lebanon sparked some of the earliest experiments into why people reach dramatically different conclusions about the same events.

The results say a lot about partisan behavior in general -- why Republicans and Democrats love to hate each other, for example, or why Coke and Pepsi fans clash. Sadly, the results also say a lot about the newest conflicts between Israel and its enemies in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and why news organizations are being besieged with angry complaints from both sides.

Partisans, it turns out, don't just arrive at different conclusions; they see entirely different worlds . In one especially telling experiment, researchers showed 144 observers six television news segments about Israel's 1982 war with Lebanon.

Pro-Arab viewers heard 42 references that painted Israel in a positive light and 26 references that painted Israel unfavorably.

Pro-Israeli viewers, who watched the very same clips, spotted 16 references that painted Israel positively and 57 references that painted Israel negatively.

Both groups were certain they were right and that the other side didn't know what it was talking about.

The tendency to see bias in the news -- now the raison d'etre of much of the blogosphere -- is such a reliable indicator of partisan thinking that researchers coined a term, "hostile media effect," to describe the sincere belief among partisans that news reports are painting them in the worst possible light.

Were pro-Israeli and pro-Arab viewers who were especially knowledgeable about the conflict immune from such distortions? Amazingly, it turned out to be exactly the opposite, Stanford psychologist Lee D. Ross said. The best-informed partisans were the most likely to see bias against their side.

Ross thinks this is because partisans often feel the news lacks context. Instead of just showing a missile killing civilians, in other words, partisans on both sides want the news to explain the history of events that prompted -- and could have justified -- the missile. The more knowledgeable people are, the more context they find missing.

Even more curious, the hostile media effect seems to apply only to news sources that strive for balance. News reports from obviously biased sources usually draw fewer charges of bias. Partisans, it turns out, find it easier to countenance obvious propaganda than news accounts that explore both sides.

I thought you'd like to know. Any thoughts?
higher education is filled with libs, but the really smart ones, you know, with common sense, recognize the truth, and the truth tends to lean to the right.
This is what WIN is trying to do--to put the news in context.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?