What's Time's Point?

It's almost 2 weeks later, but this is the perfect companion to the preceding piece.

Again, no pic will accompany this post, because the point of the message is the remarkable lack of judgement from the press.

The last post had to do with the media giving too much coverage to a mass murderer, granting his request for fame. And now, Time Magazine, needlessly names the 2 victims of a tiger mauling despite a request for privacy.

Brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, were at San Francisco General Hospital with severe bite and claw wounds. Their names were provided by hospital and law enforcement sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the family had not yet given permission to release their names.

Since it is apparent that the family did not want the names released at this time, why would Time publish their identity? To what purpose?

And how much did they pay their "anonymous sources" to give them the info?

What is wrong with the news media today?

Time should be ashamed of their coverage.

Giving Serial Killers What They Want

There is deliberately no picture accompanying this post, which will be brief.

For a change, it is not related to politics. It is an indictment of what passes for news in America.

In the aftermath of the mass murder in Omaha, I was appalled to see MSNBC endlessly stating that the killer had left behind a letter saying that he wanted to be famous. All the while, these dolts kept the man's face plastered and gave him all the publicity he ever could have wished for. How many times did we have to hear his Internet rants and read about the letters he left behind?

And don't think that similarly-inclined people did not notice.

I didn't need to switch to other news networks to know that MSNBC was not alone in their coverage. This was the way this story would be played out. They all try and out-sensationalize the other, and their judgement is pretty awful.

So, I was more than a little bit relieved to see that maybe we have reached the tipping point.

The AP has a good piece today on the sensationalization of that crime and a debate on the merits of not giving these killers the publicity they seek.

At least I know I am not alone in my disgust.

You can access the story here.

Bill O'Reilly Opera!

Dana Milbank Takes Mitt Romney To The Woodshed

In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank has a devastating column on GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

In a piece titled, "Anything Goes," Milbank writes that Romney is such a panderer that "much of what Romney says can't stand up to the light of day."

He goes on to list examples from a stump speech that Romney gave in Des Moines, Iowa on Friday. They are scathing examples.

I have written about Romney in the past, including his ever-evolving opinions on glbt-issues. You see, he had to hold a different set of beliefs when he was running for Governor of Massachusetts, than he does now that he has to capture the right-wing of the GOP in a national election.

If ever a man was all facade, hypocrisy and pandering phoniness, Mitt Romney fits the bill.

What I find most shocking, however, is that a respected reporter with national creds actually had the cajones to call him out on it.

This article will haunt Romney for the rest of his quest for the GOP nomination. No way he'll get it, however. Stick a fork in him.

The GOP Hypocrisy On Stem Cell Research

I was glad to see that the most popular article on the Time magazine website today had to do with a potential new breakthrough on stem cell research.

As somebody who has been very active in working with both Alzheimer's and Diabetes charitable organizations, I know the implications of stem cell research and the enormous upside. I understand why Nancy Reagan and most Americans are fully in favor of funding. I am also equally nauseated with the official Bush position, those of his lapdogs (like Rush Limbaugh) and the sickening religious right-wing, who still acts as if this is somehow an immoral practice.

As I have written in the past, it is hypocrisy to be against stem cell research if one is in favor of in vitro fertilization. That is because the embryos used for the research are taken from embryos harvested in fertility clinics, and which would be discarded anyway.

I am glad to see a widely read piece from Time saying the same thing.

Michael Kinsley, who suffers from Parkinson's, wrote,

"although the political dilemma that stem cells pose for politicians is real enough, the moral dilemma is not and never was. The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research. Why let these embryos go to waste? But a more important point is, What about fertility clinics themselves? In vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies") involves the purposeful creation of multiple embryos, knowing and intending that most of them either will die after implantation in the womb or, if not implanted, will be discarded or frozen indefinitely. Even if all embryonic-stem-cell research stopped tomorrow, this far larger mass slaughter of embryos would continue. There is no political effort to stop it. Bush even praised in vitro fertilization in his 2001 speech about the horrors of stem-cell research. In vitro has become too popular for politicians to take on. But their failure to do so makes a mockery of their alleged agony over embryonic stem cells."

For the full text of his piece, click here.