My morning routine was moving along as usual.  There I sat in my easy chair, groggy, munching on a bowl of Golden Grahams.  And, might I add, it is the finest bowl of cereal- sweet and crunchy with more than a hint of nostalgic graham cracker taste.  I stared at the Today Show not really tuned in to the contents.  I like Matt & Meridith, along with Al and Ann.  Come to think of it, Ann has not been around recently.  I know these guys and the network tow the liberal line.  But I just cannot stand the glib, inane chatter of Fox & Friends.  And Meridith seems intent upon being the “anti-Katie”, which seems to me a very good thing.  Over the years I’ve watched Matt’s receding hairline and Al’s expanding waist and just grown comfortable with the bunch.

They do news and information is 90-second blurts.  That’s right.  The subject matter could involve a movie about a dog or an interview with the President, but it still will be short and silly and with little real informational value.  And I guess such is to be expected, since the average viewer is probably glassy eyed and dribbling cereal into his lap.

Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC’s chief medical editor, was on the screen at the moment.  My eyes focused, because she is cute, with big dimples and a ready smile.  And my ears tuned in to what she was saying.  She was commenting on Obama’s nominee for U. S. Surgeon General, Sanjay Gupta, a fellow physician-turned-talking- head and currently spouting inanities on CNN.  She offered opinion about the former Surgeon General during the Reagan administration, C. Everett Koop.  In a bizarre attempt I guess to compliment him, she commented concerning his personal beliefs about abortion, and then contrasted such with his heavy-handed opposition to smoking.  She was very supportive of how he sought to curtail smoking with graphic and disturbing warning labels on packs of cigarettes.  But she branded his beliefs about abortion with the pejorative “anti-choice” .  Of course, Matt and Company simply nodded their heads, since this was acceptable language in their circles of influence.  And now I was wide awake.

Surely an ongoing government policy of heavy taxation upon cigarettes and the accompanying graphic, negative labeling, could be equally termed “anti-choice” ?  But there would be no way for the political left to use such an ugly description for one of their pet causes.  After all, millions of people die because of the effects of smoking.  To use the heavy hand of government to make it expensive, legally restricted, and socially unacceptable would be a good thing.   Right?  I’ll surmise that Dr. Snyderman and her cohorts would likely lose little sleep and offer little opposition if, one day, cigarettes would be rendered illegal and thus relegated to “back-alley smoking”.

If “anti-choice” is the selected term for those opposed to abortion, then the rules of fair and ethical journalism should require that “anti-life” be the description for those supportive of abortion.  It’s only fair.  Pro-choice can be countered with pro-life. 

Dr. Snyderman reveals much about her liberal, militant, ultimately intolerant point of view.  If she and NBC value those viewers who see this issue through different eyes, then the rhetoric should be tempered.  It’s enough to make me want to eat nails for breakfast.

---

posted by: alaskawildflowers (reply)
post date: 01.07.09 (9:33 am)

enjoy those nails.

---

posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 01.07.09 (10:28 am)

Pretty sure the term "pro-life" and those who like to think it describe their stance on the issue love that fact that the use of that particular phrase insinuates, and has for a few decades, that anyone who doesn't share their view is, in fact, anti-life. I suppose that's okay though, right?

A more honest term for the anti-abortion crowd - as a group, anyway - would be "We care a hell of a lot more about the unborn than the already born. By the way, statistically speaking, hardly any of us adopt and really, we only care about Americans. Other people dying, even innocents, don't really bother us much, or at least not enough to do anything about it."

I know. Too long to fit on a bumper sticker.

Having said that? What sort of inanities have you heard Sanjay Gupta say. I can't say I've ever heard of him at all 'til yesterday.

---

posted by: bawdy (reply)
post date: 01.07.09 (12:27 pm)

I have liberal views pertaining to some issues, more conservative views on others. Why is there a need to label people as one or the other?

I could likewise accuse the conservatives for painting anyone opposing the war as unpatriotic. Both sides are guilty of stigmatizing the other.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 01.08.09 (9:25 am)

Reply to: alaskawildflowers
They're sugar coated and come in a colorful box, for $4.99.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 01.08.09 (9:39 am)

Reply to: surrogate
You pore over the wording of my blog as if it were inspired scripture! I use the term "inanities" as a general description of the meaningless blathering of the television commentator. Likely, somewhere along the way, Gupta will say something meaningful and maybe even profound. But I generalize, and rightfully so I'm sure, that most of what is said in these news/variety shows will do little to enlighten the viewer. Concerning his qualifications to be the next Surgeon General- who knows? Ask Dr. Snyderman.

"Pro-life" is the term of preference for the over one hundred million Americans who view abortion differently from Dr. Snyderman. "Anti-choice" is intentionally derogatory. "Pro-life" is inexact, but no more so than "pro-choice". Snyderman's choice to insult is a slap to those who view the issue differently than herself. It is smug, self-righteous, condescending, and unfairly takes advantage of her position of influence on the television. It is also short-sighted, because NBC apparently is oblivious to the fact that about half their viewers at any given moment are likely "anti-choice". They presume the continued advertising dollars even as they insult these viewers.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 01.08.09 (9:42 am)

Reply to: bawdy
Some opposition to the war is purely for political power. Maybe that could be unpatriotic. I suspect, sadly, the average politician has matters higher in priority than the good of the country.

You are right- labels are unfair.

---

posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 01.08.09 (1:06 pm)

Reply to: PastorDave

Well, Dave - first, I've seen some very weird footage over the last couple of days from some of Gupta's reports for CNN. Some of what I saw certainly did look inane, but like you I can't judge whether he's qualified.

So Pro-choice isn't accurate? You prefer the "pro-abortion" label? That's the one I've heard used by the anti-choice crowd for thirty years now, even though personally, I don't know anyone who is "pro" abortion. I do know hundreds and hundreds of people who are Pro-Choice.

By definition, people who think abortion ought to be outlawed; that there should be no choice about whether a woman is allowed to get an abortion; then those people are, in fact, anti-choice, aren't they?

---

posted by: KurtMaddox (reply)
post date: 01.09.09 (11:17 pm)

Of course there are lots of intolerant liberals, PD -- that's not really a news flash. Still, you're guilty of a really silly equivocation comparing the Dr's anti-smoking views with abortion prohibition proponents. I'm pro-choice but I'd be more than happy with women seeking abortions being given ALL the available relevant health information about the risks inherent to abortion, including the emotional/psychological risks.

I'm also fine with smoking remaining legal for consenting adults to do in private areas where children aren't forced to ingest 2nd hand smoke.

Does any of that make me intolerant?

Oh, and nice slam on Dr. Gupta speaking of mean-spirited intolerance! lol!

Your Name:


Your Comment: