Posts Tagged ‘mother jones’

Not only is Mother Jones full of it

Posted: February 28, 2011 by datechguy in catholic, opinion/news
Tags: , , , ,

…in my opinion they KNOW they are full of it but decided to play this game anyway. Listen to how they phrase things:

The bills are so loosely worded, abortion-rights advocates say

A Planned Parenthood official testified last week at a hearing on Nebraska’s LB 232 that such legislation “authorizes and protects vigilantes.

Oh of course. “Abortion rights advocates” and “planned parenthood” (one and the same) are saying this. Abortion is a sacrament to them. Anything that dehumanizes the unborn is sacred to them.

(BTW check out this new Planned parenthood ad arguing against their defending, funny how in their list of services they neglect to mention a particular one.

Now the only paragraph were they phrase it differently they say:

Critics of the bills, including law enforcement officials, warn that these measures could invite violence against abortion providers and possibly provide legal cover to the perpetrators of such crimes.

Do they name the law enforcement officials? Do they specify the affiliations of said folks, sorry no can do.

As Stacy McCain points out AUL has made no secret of any of these things:

My point is that there is nothing at all secretive about Americans United for Life’s role in promoting these laws. The model legislation for the “Pregnant Woman’s Protection Act” is featured on AUL’s Web site, and providing model legislation and legal advice is a specialty that AUL proudly proclaims on its Web site:

Let’s cut to the chase, AUL is not endorsing murder. Anyone who thinks that this would trump basic murder laws is selling you something. So why do you see this kind of panic article? Simple. The left is losing, and losing big, not only in terms of elections of republicans, but polls have been moving for years against abortion.

This is what comes of killing off millions of your potential voters over a 40 year period.

Mother Jones made me laugh…

Posted: May 11, 2010 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , , , , ,

with this article concerning Elena Kagan:

Gossiping about the sexuality of Washington powerbrokers has become sort of a national pastime. But the stakes—and the vitriol—seem to go up substantially when powerful women crash the beltway frat party. And while Sullivan might think that sexual orientation has become as bland a biographical detail as Jewishness, the unfortunate truth is that, unlike him, most of those suggesting Kagan has something to hide aren’t rooting for her to come out so she can advance the cause of gay rights. They just want to knock a powerful woman down a few notches.

I have not nor do I suggest that Elena Kagan’s sexuality disqualifies her for the high court, nor should it. Yet Mother Jones suggests that to be a Lesbian is a slur. Why is that? How is the suggestion that Kagan is a lesbian directing hate to her? I think the very suggestion is a great example of two things.

The first being projection, Mother Jones’ Stephanie Memcimer is quick to play the “homophobia” card but she is the one suggesting Lesbianism is a slur, something to be denied. I guess Cynthia is right when she talks about the left’s true feelings about homosexuals.

The second being the suggestion that the White house plan is to duck the issue until it can be framed as Mother Jones just did. That way it can be the story of: Evil Right Wingers pushing the Kagan’s sexuality as an issue, as opposed to a celebration of the first Lesbian justice. This will give the media a reason to celebrate the diversity without having brought it up themselves first being forced into it. The White House’s cunning plan that I mentioned in play?

Sounds like don’t ask don’t tell to me, but it can’t be because we know Kagan opposes it.

Even funnier than that is this line that really takes the cake:

Just ask John Edwards how hard it is to keep secret relationships secret in the era of 24/7 celebrity coverage.

Is she serious? Does she not recall the successful efforts of the media to totally ignore and deny the John Edwards story until there was no chance of him getting the nomination? This is supposed to be a professional journalist who I am to give credence to? Ha!