How can Katie Couric claim to keep her politics our of her work when she offers up her own editorial positions on a variety of subjects? She does so in the course of her "Katie Couric's Notebook" segments. It's true that Katie normally avoids the controversial. On January 16th, for example, she took a bold stand against procrastination. And when she did address abortion on January 22nd, she played it largely down the middle -- though pro-lifers might argue that her mention of the way the issue has sparked violence ignores the daily violence of abortion itself.But at times Couric takes positions on hot issues of the day, such as on January 12th when she expressed the hope that the Gitmo prison "is closed down soon." On January 26th, Couric came out for "breaking our addiction to oil." Or how about this one, in which, incredibly, Couric argued in favor of congressional earmarks!
Then yesterday, in a segment modestly entitled "Saving our Daughters" Couric came out for universal vaccination for the human papillomavirus, HPV, for girls. This is a highly-controversial issue. Many traditionalists are strongly opposed to mandatory vaccinations for girls as young as 11. For example, take this column on the subject from the Independent Women's Forum in which the author writes:
The latest from an immunization panel affiliated with the National Centers for Disease Control: force every single little girl, female teenager, and young woman in the country to be vaccinated against cervical cancer--actually against sexually transmitted disease that can cause cancer.Whatever your views on this particular issue, don't we have reason to suspect Couric will tailor her treatment when covering candidates who favor -- or oppose -- her position? To use a time-honored Couric trope, I suppose "some might say" it's better to have Katie put her politics out there. In any case, looking at the body of her "Notebook" work, and however she might strive for a moderate tone, it's hard to see Katie other than as a predictable liberal MSM voice
Here’s the New York Times report:
"The vote all but commits the federal government to spend as much as $2 billion alone on a program to buy the vaccine for the nation’s poorest girls from 11 to 18.
"The vaccine, Gardasil, protects against cancer and genital warts by preventing infection from four strains of the human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted disease, according to federal health officials. The virus is also a cause of other cancers in women."
If you think 11 sounds young for sex, how about age 9--the recommended age in some cases?
But there are a few hitches--such as parents who, uh, balk at the idea of telling prepubescent girls that it’s just fine for them to have all the sex they want, ’cuz now they’ll be vaccinated! And isn’t it against the law to have sex with children?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Memo to myself, the perky one
February 2, 2007 - 08:45 ET by Mica the MagnificentMemo to myself, the perky one. Future Notebook comments:
1) We should keep 'elections' in this country.
2) Disease is bad.
3) Dirt is old.
Al Gore-a nominata for-a da piss prize? Gooda! I hope-a he win-a! -My Italian grandfather misinterpreting, but happy with the news
Next memo
February 2, 2007 - 10:02 ET by SportPoliticsNext memo to my inner child that believes anything: Democrats passed the largest spending bill ever, and it has no earmarks in it.
[ “The thing is, one person’s earmark, wasteful spending, [when] defined by the person who’s proposing it, is neither pork nor wasteful,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who will rejoin the Appropriations panel next year. “It’s a question of how you define these things.”]
Yes, I'm certain it is a question of how you define these things. This is how KC's bs bland defines these things: [ What's missing from the Democrats' spending bills? Earmarks ]
Now, that isn't coming right out and saying there are no earmarks, but that sure as heck what it sounds like. I assume that's the plan, since "missing earmarks" means KC thinks less are there compared to the usual R earmarks, that are now missing. But, she won't say that's what she meant unless she has to, because she didn't say none, or no new.
Ahh, that might be it also. Since it's the reworked repub. bill, missing earmarks may simply mean the democrats didn't "add more" earmarks ( since they already formerly negotiated those in the unpassed bill(s) ), but kept their already earmarks in. This way, earmarks are "missing" because the dems since taking power didn't add any.
Alternately, this could be the giant bill that has never had earmarks inserted in large fashion, and they are always inserted in a different bill (set) that is the big earmark bill.
I don't know exactly which lie or combination of lies it is that is being crammed down our throats, but someone surely knows.
I know they're lying.
Ahh, the no earmarks lie becoming clearer
February 2, 2007 - 10:23 ET by SportPoliticsAhh, the no earmarks lie becoming clearer. I knew there was something amazingly fishy about all this !
Rest assured, the DEMS HAVE BEEN DECIEVING.
[ The House passed an earmark disclosure resolution in September(REPUBLICAN CONTROL TIME) that required appropriations, tax and authorizing bills to identify the members requesting earmarks, though watchdog groups blasted the measure as defining the term too narrowly. The tax, trade and health omnibus that passed just before the 109th Congress adjourned contained three earmarks and two “probable earmarks,” according to the House resolution, and two of those five were requested by Reid.}
In other words, on the resolution or House scam definition "lawbooks" already is the NEW DEFINITION OF AN EARMARK, so narrowly defined that " nearly nothing counts anymore ."
Passed in September, BEFORE the November vote, the democrats now have a DEFINITION that says there are no earmarks.
YES,IT'S JUST AMAZING.......
I'm sure there is no procedure nor a dozen loopholes that "make that former earmark not an earmark under the new defintion passed and subcribed to in September of last year right before the election"......
NOT !
Well republicans, that little agreement gave the dems a lot of possibilities for LYING to us all. Congratulations.
Here's how the no earmarks lie works
February 2, 2007 - 10:33 ET by SportPoliticsHere's how the no earmarks lie works:
1. single entity tax benefits only are now considered the only "earmarks" that shall be defined as earmarks.
2. formerly, the only requests for earmarks considered were ones that gave taxbreaks to at least ten companies.
3. The at least ten companies recieving the earmark tax break request and inclusion into an "earmark" standard will likely be maintained.
4. NOW, UNDER THE ONLY A SINGLE COMPANY BENEFITTING IS CONSIDERED "AN EARMARK" RULE, THERE ARE NO EARMARKS ANYMORE !!!!!!!!!
_______________________________________
see below for the code language, or above I'm not the greatest explainer. :-0
the trick
[The tax-writing committees, Finance and House Ways and Means, may extend earmark-like “special privileges” to companies seeking targeted breaks, although September’s House resolution defined an earmark as a tax benefit aimed at a single entity. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said his panel has long operated under an informal rule against considering tax provisions affecting fewer than 10 companies, adding that incoming Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) is likely to continue that guideline.]
Hire me Washington Times !
Papilloma virus
February 2, 2007 - 10:05 ET by BBallleaperIn 1977, herpes virologist Harald zur Hausen proposed that HPV caused cervical cancer. He found broken pieces of HPV in the tumor cells of some patients. Arguing against this causation is the fact that half of the American population had been infected by the ubiquitous virus, therefore one half of American women had been infected, yet only one percent of women ever develop the cancer in their lifetime.
Zur Hausen originally calculated a "latency period" of 20-50 years since usually young sexually active women contract HPV, while older women (40-70) contract cervical cancer. However, HPV does NOT reactivate when CC appears. Also, each CC develops from one mutated cell which begs the question of what happens to the millions of other infected cells?
HPV warts are not malignant. They typically appear and regress spontaneously. CC begins from benign hyperplasias. While the majority normally regress, some progress into dysplasias. Occasionally a dysplasia can give rise to a neoplasia. Some neoplasias become malignant. It has been postulated that the active cell growth of the dysplasias may promote HPV activity.
Equal numbers of men and women have HPV but PC is very rare among men. A cancer "virus" that can infect both sexes equally should cause tumors in both sexes equally, but it doesn't. It is more likely that smoking and the use of oral hormonal contraceptives may be more important factors in the development of CC. CC is also not contagious.
The HPV test is widely used today costing $30 - 150, yet a negative test today can be positive the following week meaning the use of the test is endless and expensive. Universal vaccination to age 11 will likewise be expensive and perhaps unwise.
There is no current scientific evidence or study directly proving that HPV causes CC which is why the advertisements insert the word "may" when referring to causation.
Great stuff. Valuable informa
February 2, 2007 - 12:28 ET by bulletproofGreat stuff. Valuable information. It's no surprise that the media are on high alert about this, though. After all, any possible avenue of death for a Liberal must be railed and vehemently fought against in order to delay the inevitable "meeting with their Maker" whom they have strained to ignore all their lives.
Never use your gun to pistol-wip a Liberal. That could mar the finish.
Saving our Daughters - Great
February 2, 2007 - 09:24 ET by rimskySaving our Daughters - Great Idea. Let's teach them about making the right choices. Where is the cry for a higher moral standard? That's the tougher choice. It's just so much easier to take more money out of the taxpayers pockets a give 'em all shot. That way nobody has to worry or fret about whether our 'Daughters' are having casual sex or not.
Blurred Lines
February 2, 2007 - 09:26 ET by JimboThis is symptomatic of a larger underlying issue with the media today. There are blurred lines between reporting and opining. Up until recently, commentators were given the “air” of reporting through their show formats. Then, commentators began appearing on “reporting” shows, to support and back up the opinions of the reporters. Something like this is just a natural progression of what’s been happening all along. Now the “reporters” are also “commentators”, neatly rolled into on nice little package. As long as this type of thing exists, fair and balanced reporting is literally impossible.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
As a mother of a two young t
February 2, 2007 - 10:05 ET by msh1973As a mother of a two young teen girls...I don't think so! This topic really burns me. The jury is still out on this drug. I will speak to my kid's doctor before I make any decision in regard to their health. I don't need Katie telling me what to do or how to think. The nerve of these people, they think we are complete morons!
ending our dependence on fore
February 2, 2007 - 10:05 ET by buddycending our dependence on foreign oil is the most important need that this country has. but the liberals have a problem with that issue. we should discuss that issue all the time.
how do we end dependence?? only through nukes, more hydro, more domestice production, alternatives like oil shale and coal, and also through alternative energy.
liberals will argue the only solution is conservation and alternative energy. those solutions are stupid and un-realistic. no one wll really want to cut back and alternative energy will not come close to replacing foreign oil.
let kattie talk all day about ending foreign oil dependency.
Hi, I'm Katie Couric and here is my lastest gimmick...
February 2, 2007 - 10:37 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasCouric is probably one of the best representatives of the Crybaby Boomer generation in media today. Closing in on 50, Couric brings up the rear of this confused and unprincipled generation and demonstrates much of their utter cluelessness and delusional ideas about society. And here is Couric with another gimmick, appealing to women with a strong advocacy on behalf of women's bodies, namely one of their sex organs.
This crap might sell in the moring when hysterical hens dominate the viewing audience but such social partisanship isn't the interest of the remaining viewers who never tuned into her in the morning and who easily represent 50-75% of the nightly news audience. It might play in Springfield honey...but not on Broadway.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
liberals
February 2, 2007 - 11:37 ET by iveseenitallTypical modern liberalism. Promote promiscuity, then root for science to support immoral, harmful behavior. Liberals are sick in more ways than one. Too bad there's no "shot" which would cure them. That is how science could truly help the world.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
It is easy to offer your comm
February 2, 2007 - 17:42 ET by truth_missileIt is easy to offer your comments when you have no audience - just ask Keith Oldblowberman.