You are currently browsing the daily archive for March 26, 2010.

In a sea of media that frames the women’s choice debate in right wing terms, NPR tries to say it has a clue even as they use the wrong title:

NPR Changes Abortion Language

Whether they are aware or not, the mere fixation on “abortion” as opposed on “reproductive rights” is putting them solidly in the right wing camp – even as they rey to paint themselves as unbiased. These are the “don’t”s

Do not use “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in copy except when used in the name of a group. Of course, when the terms are used in an actuality they should remain.” [An actuality is a clip of tape of someone talking. So if a source uses those terms, NPR will not edit them out.]

But if that’s not clear enough that they adopt the RW talking point, here are the “do”s

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”.

Again, maybe I missed the fact that, in accordance with the Jane Crow climate in the country, NPR is slipping further to the right by adopting “abortion rights” as the acceptable neutral term.

Or maybe it had to change the language to accommodate Obama’s

The president supports abortion rights.

You know, an action so uniquely his, a word had to be invented – like “clinching the nomination” meant getting it by not winning it.

In the case of reproductive choice it’s touting it while giving it the Norquist treatment (getting down to the size where he can drown it in a bathtub)

Note to NPR, media, politicians and assorted lunatics: what we have to fight incessantly is our right to chose as well as having legal  medical care delivered to us.

The “abortion right” is something you made up, because you hope the word is going to get a rise from your coveted audience.

Here is a good analysis of how “abortion rights” came about

Here’s how they do it. First, they smear pro-choice activists as “pro-abortion”

Step two: use the words “abortion rights” to define our struggle

BZZZZZT! Wrong again. Our struggle is for full equality, which means total control over our bodies. Choosing whether or not to reproduce is a private matter and a private choice; as such, I firmly believe that the state should have no rights over my ovaries whatsoever. That includes my access to birth control, the morning-after pill, fact-based sex education (not the kind that tells you condoms cause AIDS, thank you very much), and yes, abortion….

I know the insurance and Wall Street overlords are going to prop him up, but the peasants have lost their awe.

According to a CNN poll

The public is split right down the middle on whether President Barack Obama should be re-elected and a majority of Americans predict he will be a one-term president, according to a new national poll.

In other words: asked if they wanted Obama or a republican, the electorate as a whole said: “same shit”

And for all the “he’s better off than Clinton at this stage” peppered at every turn, this is the number I would worry about (if I cared)

“Independents currently favor the Republican by 11 points.”

Because, what this poll may not be saying, but others do, Independents are the fastest growing party (or lack of it) that dirty politics created as of late.

At Top of the Ticket, Andrew Malcolm illustrates this with a big white space

Here’s a closeup photo above of the Republican candidate for president who’s currently tied with President Obama for the 2012 White House race.

No one.

Or anyone.

Meanwhile, Obama, who slighted his base on everything, is offering them cheap red meat with in your face photo ops like the one sported by Obama Times today

Some of the weaker minded B0bots will go for it, I’m sure, but many more are off that treadmill.

And I found it! Thread cheering a whole series of these pics

and another one with a more B0bot-like headline

Obama: “Who the f*** reads this sh*t?” (Pic)

.

WaPo and Obama Times compete for the most insufferable gloating pages – who do you think takes the prize?

WaPo

Obama Times

Stars and stripes reminds us of war, but it’s headline could be about we, the people

And what Stars and Stripes called “relaxing” Washington Times revels as a a cynical “improvement” on DADT

Read the rest of this entry »

Not Your Sweetie