Faux News now broadcasts on every channel

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 03:47
VIEWED: 1825
PAGE 1 of 1

RUE

Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:20 AM

Perhaps you remember seeing the propaganda. Has anything else come to your attention lately?

What I've noticed in particular is the story of Terri Schiavo. All the TV media play the same roughly 2 second clip in which she appears to turn and smile at her mother. (And the on-line news media are all using the exact same picture from that clip.)

My first flippant response is 'it's just gas'. The more tragic observation is that her cerebral cortex - the site of everything that makes her more than mindless reflexes - is gone, replaced with cerebral spinal fluid.

Turning toward sound is a reflex. You will find references by googling phrases like 'orienting reflex', 'orienting response', 'head turning reflex' etc. Smiles can also be reflexes (google under smile reflex). The website below does a good job summarizing the medical information, as well as the level of propaganda about her. And there are sites that document when she has smiled inappropriately; or failed to smile, track a moving object, orient toward sound etc.

It's extraordinarily easy to find real information about this story. So, given that the video clip misrepresents her real condition - which is that she irretrievably dissolved as her cortex did - why do we see it exclusively every time a NEWS story on her is run?

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/03/debunking_lies_.html
"Terri is neither comatose, nor brain dead. She is in a vegetative state because her higher brain centers have been destroyed and replaced by fluid."
"A recent fMRI by study found two patients in a minimally conscious state (MCS) showed slightly more brain activity during speech recognition tasks. Terri Schiavo is not in an MCS. According to the authors of the study, a diagnosis of MCS is reserved for a subset of patients who demonstrate "unequivocal, but intermittent, behavioral evidence of awareness of self or their environment." Unfortunately, Terri is even more severely disabled than the patients in this study."
"Despite what Terri's parents say, there are no new treatments that could help their daughter. You can't treat a brain that isn't there."

HARDWARE

Saturday, March 19, 2005 11:56 PM

What I love is the congressional Republicans who promised to stay out of state's business getting together to intercede and meddling with state business.

Who's the governor of Florida again? Oh, nevermind.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 21, 2005 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
What I love is the congressional Republicans who promised to stay out of state's business getting together to intercede and meddling with state business.

Who's the governor of Florida again? Oh, nevermind.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

As I understand it, the Judge in Florida who had the feeding tube removed is from the "Religious Right". I don't think this issue divides strictly down defined political lines. I, as a conservative ( Libertarian ) see this as a State's Rights issue, and feel that the U.S. Congress has no say in this matter. I'll admit, though, that not having spent any time informing myself on the particulars of Mrs Shiavo's condition, ( brain dead, veggie, or what ever..) I can't offer a conclusive opinion - either way.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

JAYNEZTOWN

Monday, March 21, 2005 10:38 AM

Funny, they claim to have an evangelical and big religious claim about doing what's right

yet people are dying in America cos the health service has gone to the dogs with the Bush economy and costs of Iraq are going up every day, people can not afford treatment and medicare is a disaster

They claim to be nice and proper with god-like concern for life
but how many innocent people have they executed in the death row gas chambers or black teens fried by old sparky who never did any crime

as others say

Quote:

Geezer- the difference between our ethnic cleansing and theirs is that we use bombs, tanks, and artillery while they use IEDs, RPGs and small arms. We target whole cities while they target key roads or neighborhoods. We target hospitals and clinics and all males between the ages of 15-55 while they target security forces and contractors... both sides claiming that its done because they "might" be on the other side. Oh yeah, we are MUCH better than they are! We're so much more effective.

If you didn't get the point, I'll make it more explicit: You can hardly excuse every single American atrocity that was every comitted with the blanket phrase "good tactics". I COULD say the same thing about the insurgents... after all, are they not following good tactics? But seeing as I don't intend to excuse our actions, I won't excuse theirs either...If you didn't get the point, I'll make it more explicit: You can hardly excuse every single American atrocity that was every comitted with the blanket phrase "good tactics". I COULD say the same thing about the insurgents... after all, are they not following good tactics? But seeing as I don't intend to excuse our actions, I won't excuse theirs either

here is the clincher on the word 'war' "armed conflict". since when are unarmed children, newborn babies, bed ridden seniors etc considdered to be combattants in "armed conflict"? or indeed "in armed groups". since when is a child, a mother or grandparent who does not own or have access to firearms a threat to anyone? the war is against those who are armed, but exactly WHO instigated this war? i dont hate GWB, i couldnt give a stuff about oil kickbacks and i dislike french cooking yet fundamentaly, i still assert that by definition GWB is a terrorist.
A good point made in
Stem-Cells, Gay rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??

There have been many Responses on this Religious Propaganda before

On Abortion - I don't think anyone their right mind is pro-Abortion, people are pro-choice and pro-choise for women. If a womman is ill, or she is raped or incest occurs or there are many other factors such as this involved then I think she should have the right to choose...nobody is really on a pro-Abortion election stance they are pro-choice. Janet Jackson's boob - it happened ! big deal ! Yes indeed it was a big deal for Powell's Son at the FCC and Faux news
Real issues in this election were ignored, the rising cost of fuel , heating and oil, the crisis in Iraq and the missing WMDs in Iraq, the unemployment rates - there have been more jobs lost than in any four years in the US since the Great Depression and sadly a new record with some of the worst deficits ever. Another import new item has surfaced the most wicked and biggest SOBof our times, Osama bin Ldean, is indeed very much alive and well and videotaping in his own personal blockbuster studio again! The Iranians have not agreed to suspend uranium enrichment, the IAEA says there are still doubts concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions including the nature of work on advanced centrifuges and plutonium separation experiments that were kept secret from the agency there are many in Washington who feel Iran is trying to get hold of more weapons such as Nuclear bombs. There a nuclear crisis with North Korea their statements have been often cryptic in the past but sometimes quiet clear...with N.Korea basically saying at times in the past " come on USA, come get us you son-of-bushes, we've got Nukes and we're going to build more" . Wit

SIGNYM

Monday, March 21, 2005 10:44 AM

Not only is this a State matter, it's a personal matter. The last fifteen years of Terri's life may have been sheer torture. Extending it may be sheer hell. I don't know, but then, neither does Congress nor do the people who've seen the same 3-second clip over and over again. (What about the OTHER 473 million seconds of Terri's vegetative life?) The only people who MIGHT have an informed guess are the people who take care of her and see her every day. Congress and the strangers who've gotten themselves involved are too far away from the situation to make a decision. What lunacy.

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 21, 2005 11:03 AM

Quote:
JaynezTown wrote:
Monday, March 21, 2005 00:38
Funny, they claim to have an evangelical and big religious claim about doing what's right

yet people are dying in America cos the health service has gone to the dogs with the Bush economy and costs of Iraq are going up every day, people can not afford treatment and medicare is a disaster

And what's any of this have to do w/ Terry Shiavo? People are dying because the health service has gone to the Bush economy? Can you say 'red herring' ?? There's nothing valid in your statement what so ever. I've got news for you... people DIE. Hard fact to deal with, and Bush becoming President isn't going to change that. I see that you've taken this opportunity to simply bash Bush again, for no apparent reason.

In case you missed it, the judge in FLA who ordered the feeding tube removed is a religious-right Republican.
And Greer, vilified by many religious protesters, is a church regular. He also is a conservative Republican in a state whose conservative Republican governor tried to overturn one of Greer's orders.

"George is the religious right," said lawyer David Kurland, a longtime friend.

Friends say Greer's intellect is perfectly formed to withstand the very tempest he now faces. Always calm, not prone to mood swings or flares of temper, unerringly polite, he is not easily ruffled, they say. http://www.stpetetimes.com/2005/03/06/Tampabay/Quiet_judge_persists_.s
html

Go ahead an try to hijack this thread by ( once again ) showing contempt for..oh, just about everything.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KNIBBLET

Monday, March 21, 2005 1:35 PM

What this has shown me is that not matter that my husband and I both have iron-clad DNR's (Do Not Resuscitate), political fucksticks are going to override our wishes to push their own political agenda and suck up to the hardline anti-choice crowd.

How's that for a run-on rant?

"I'm gonna rip you a new puppet hole, bitch!"

GEEZER

Monday, March 21, 2005 4:36 PM

My wife and I disagree on whether we should remodel the bathroom or the den first. Do you think we can get Congress to decide for us?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HERO

Monday, March 21, 2005 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not only is this a State matter, it's a personal matter...The only people who MIGHT have an informed guess are the people who take care of her and see her every day. Congress and the strangers who've gotten themselves involved are too far away from the situation to make a decision. What lunacy.

I agree that it should legally be a state matter and moraly it should be a personal matter. There are, however, some valid issues that this case, and ultimately it is a case (since the constitution says we cannot strip someone of life or property without due process), brings up.

First, this case devolves around two seperate parties. The first is the husband who, as legal guardian, has the legal right to make all decisions about his wife's care (or lack of care). The second is her family (mother, father, siblings) who disagree with the decision of the spouse.

The husband has won a large settlement from the accident that resulted in his wife's injury, money that is for his loss, her injury, and her ongoing care. He has also entered into a relatioship with another woman whom he has been living with for a substantial period of time and wants to marry. These are the facts, all moral judgements about his motives can be set aside for now.

Terri's family has known her for years. They visit her often, if not every day. They are convinced that she is at least semi-conscious and capable of limited recovery if given proper therapy, which to this point she has been denied.

Given the dispute between family and spouse and the apparent conflicts of interest on both sides, it falls to the courts to decide (their role would be far more limited if both sides agreed). The courts will and should rely primarily on the advice of doctors. Doctors who have not examined Terri are mostly in favor of keeping her alive. The Doctors who have examined her are split, including the chief neurologist who sides with the family saying that some recovery is possible. The Judge disagreed and removed the tube. This raises several more issues.

Second issue, should the Federal courts be involved? My first instict is to say no. But the point made about death row appeals is a valid one. A death row innmate has a right to appeal a conviction to Federal court. The judge's ruling in Florida has the same effect, but with a far more immediate effect. It seems that we have already determined that issues of life and death are Federal issues. It also seems that allowing a Federal court the jurisdiction to hear the case, is not the great leap people seem to think, but rather falls within the penumbra of established Federal Court power.

There are many issues that need to be addressed, including whether or not the family has any standing to oppose the decision of the spouse, whether starvation is a valid means of execution (or termination might be a better term), and to resolve once and for all the myriad of factual disputes over Terri's condition. I for one have no problem terminating a brain dead person, but if she's not brain dead and capable of recovery, then I have a real problem with that decision. I am also concerned that the families rights seem to be extinguished by the marriage. This is not true in any other circumstances. In areas such as child custody and visitation or inheritence, for example, while the marriage generally takes precedence, certain distinct and definable rights remain. Are these issues best addressed at the Federal level? Probably not, but again it is life and death. I suggest addressing them locally, then some kind of Federal review in special circumstances such as this one.

Third issues, what is the effect of the Congressional subpoena? This is an important issue. The local judge determined that the subpoeana issued by Congress had no effect. That violated the Supremacy clause of the Constitution and over 150 years of legal precedence. Congress has the power to subpoena anyone. Terri is not legally dead, therefore she is legally al

SIGNYM

Monday, March 21, 2005 6:05 PM

I think you should take this matter to the national press. Show the same two pix of each room over and over, endlessly discussing the quality of life in each room, and whether meaningful rehabilitation is possible for either room. A discussion of the fact that insurance doesn't cover this would be appropriate, don't you think? Get Congress to pass a law letting a Federal judge to decide. I know it's a heavy burden, but sometimes it's the only way. Sigh.

HERO

Monday, March 21, 2005 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
My wife and I disagree on whether we should remodel the bathroom or the den first. Do you think we can get Congress to decide for us?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

The real issue is who gets to decide which room to remodel IF your wife is in a coma? You or your wife parents.

Wait this whole line of discussion is crazy, Terri is person, not a piece of property.

Now if you wanted to murder your wife so you could you could own the house and marry a woman who was more agreeable about these decisions, then that analogy would be closer to the present case.

H

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 21, 2005 6:50 PM

As someone once said, logic is the BEGINNING of wisdom. In the end things are a mite simpler than volumes of words make 'em seem.
If you consider the Earth a family that has problems to attend to, chances are your thinkin's right. If it's all about us vs. them, then your probably on Jaynes level.

Peace, brothers and sisters.

Chrisisall

HERO

Monday, March 21, 2005 7:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
If it's all about us vs. them, then your probably on Jaynes level.
Chrisisall

Its all about us, to hell with them. Guess I aint on Jaynes level after all.

H

SIGNYM

Monday, March 21, 2005 7:30 PM

"Now if you wanted to murder your wife so you could you could own the house and marry a woman who was more agreeable about these decisions, then that analogy would be closer to the present case."

Careful Hero- your bias is showing. Michael Schiavo took care of Terri every day for eight years. Can you say you've done that, or even know what that entails? Have you ever taken care of a parent who was neuro-compromised and watched them suffer, knowing that recovery was impossible? Have you fought for years for the treatment of a neuro-compromised child, believing that rehabilitation was possible- even when all top-notch neurologists were saying "Give up hope"? Do you have any idea how to tell the difference between hopeful, and hopeless? Been there, done that, more than twice.

So before you start maligning Terri's ex, imagine taking total care of some for eight years- EIGHT YEARS- bathing, feeding, diapering, talking to-and finally, painfully losing hope. Watching someone you love living a what you eventually come to believe is a degraded existance... one that you're sure would not be desired by the person you love... where recovery is impossible and death is the only way out.

Why would Michael fight so hard? If it was just a matter of money- well, hell, he's got the money already. If it was just a matter of convenience, it would be FAR more convenient to let Terri's parents take custody. He's fighting because it's a matter of conviction for him- just as it is for Terri's parents.

But, hell, what do the FACTS matter, eh???

AURAPTOR

Monday, March 21, 2005 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
What this has shown me is that not matter that my husband and I both have iron-clad DNR's (Do Not Resuscitate), political fucksticks are going to override our wishes to push their own political agenda and suck up to the hardline anti-choice crowd.

How's that for a run-on rant?

"I'm gonna rip you a new puppet hole, bitch!"

Actually, this case is exactly because there was nothing in writing what so ever indicateing Terry's wishes per this matter that's causing all the ruckus. Should you and hubby have an 'iron-clad' DNR....there'd be no issue.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 21, 2005 8:10 PM

Well, you do have a way with words.

Chrisisall

SOUPCATCHER

Wednesday, March 23, 2005 10:57 AM

I guess I just wouldn't make a good news director. I don't watch cable news because I don't share their vision of what is important right now. Scott Peterson? Robert Blake? Michael Jackson? Terri Schiavo? I don't get it.

But I will use it as a tangent for a second... To riff on something Jon Stewart said yesterday (that this was the first time Bush had cut his vacation short to return to Washington). I didn't realize the Terri Schiavo legislation was the most important thing to happen in this country over the past five years. It's a good thing that, on the many previous vacations Bush has taken, nothing more serious has cropped up.

The Republican party has some very distinct sub-groups. What has been amazing to me is that, for the most part, these sub-groups subsume their differences in the interest of party unity. (Or maybe it's only amazing because the Democrat sub-groups refuse to subsume). But this is a clear example of the social conservative faction of the Republican party beating up on the states-rights faction. How much can a states-rights conservative take before they cry foul? This is pretty compelling evidence that the social conservatives will throw you to the wolves in a heartbeat.

Or maybe there are some Republicans worried about the social conservatives who get immediate action from the President:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/politics/23repubs.html?pagewanted=pr
int&position=

I'll also throw out another link that could just be a piece of fluff with unknown lineage. I have no idea if this actually was a memo put out by Rick Santorum. It seems too easy. But if it is legit, it sure does sound like Santorum is playing the social conservatives:
http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/exclusive-gops-schiavo-talki
ng-points.html

** editted to add: Okay, this was not from Santorum (or any other Senator). It looks like the content was copied from this site:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2179
I'm glad I was skeptical.
** end edit

Isn't it interesting that the three main players in the escalation of this - Jeb Bush, Frist, and DeLay - have easily transparent motivations. DeLay probably wants to distract everyone from what is going on back in Texas and both Bush and Frist are looking at running for President and eager to nail down the social conservative base of the Republican party.

RUE

Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:20 AM

Anyway, more Faux News

Quote:
Social Security Said to Go Broke in 2041
Mar 23, 12:22 PM (ET)
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
WASHINGTON (AP) - The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041 - a year earlier than previously estimated. Trustees also said that Medicare ... faces insolvency in 2020. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050323/D890QBLO0.html

When I think of broke, I think of a little cartoon-man with his empty pockets turned out. I think of having nothing. Just to be sure, I looked up 'broke':

Quote:
http://www.allwords.com/word-broke.html
1. Having no or very little money.
2. Bankrupt, financially ruined.

I looked up insolvent, since the article characterized SS as going 'broke', and Medicare as merely becoming 'insolvent':

Quote:
http://www.allwords.com/word-insolvent.html
1. Not having enough money to pay debts, creditors, etc.

Without resorting to legal definitions (since insolvent and bankrupt are legally different from each other and common usage) 'broke' - NO money, reads as worse-off than insolvent - not enough money.
In reality, in 204x (you throw the dart), SS will have spent down its reserves as planned, and will then be running on current income.

So why did AP headline the story in such blatantly slanted language?

RUE

Wednesday, April 20, 2005 3:47 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/international/middleeast/18iraq.html
?th&emc=th

April 18, 2005
Iraqi Kidnapping Tale Combines Perilous Mix of Fact and Rumor
By ROBERT F. WORTH

AGHDAD, Iraq, April 17 - Anyone in Baghdad on Sunday morning could have been forgiven for thinking the country was on the verge of civil war.

Three Iraqi Army battalions had surrounded the town of Madaen, just south of Baghdad, where Sunni kidnappers were said to be threatening to kill hundreds of Shiite hostages unless all Shiites left the town. As the National Assembly met, Iraq's top political figures warned of a sectarian crisis between the majority Shiites and minority Sunnis.

Even Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric and its most notorious terrorist fugitive weighed in on the matter with statements of their own. And the departing prime minister released a statement denouncing the "savage, filthy and dirty atrocities" in Madaen.

But as the army battalions arrived in Madaen, they saw streets full of people calmly going about their business. There were no armed Sunni mobs, no cowering Shiite victims.

After hours of careful searches, the soldiers - assisted by air surveillance - arrested some people suspected of being insurgents, but found no evidence of any kidnappings.

On Sunday evening, a few political leaders were still insisting that some hostages might yet be found. But Iraqi Army officials were reporting that the crisis in Madaen - which had been narrated in a stream of breathless television reports and news bulletins - appeared to be nothing but a tissue of rumors and politically motivated accusations.