February 4, 2017

CNN Sore-Loser Brian Stelter Questions Alabama Talk Host’s Skype Presser Presence

As Curtis Houck demonstrated at NewsBusters on Wednesday, the historic step of including four outside-the-DC Beltway journalists at White House press conferences via Skype is not sitting well “with many establishment media types.”

The sore losers at CNN are particularly aggrieved. Houck noted that the network’s Dylan Byers reported, in Houck’s words, that the move “upset some in the White House press corps” because it would “divert attention from what in-house reporters wanted to talk about.” Based on Brian Stelter’s reaction to Friday’s Skype presence of an Alabama talk radio host, it would appear that another of their objections would be that outside questioners might draw attention to what Beltway-area reporters don’t want to talk about.

(more…)

CNN’s Thursday Report on Rescinded Coal Rule: Comical, But Also Woefully Incomplete

UPDATE, Feb. 7: On Feb. 5, Jake Tapper tweeted that “if you’re concerned about things being ‘incomplete’ maybe consider adding into your post Manchin on same show response to rule.” I attempted to find that video, and could not. If it was so important, and in the interest of balance, one would hope it would be part of the CNN video at the web link cited below — and it’s not.

As Nicholas Fondacaro noted at NewsBusters Friday morning, CNN had a Thursday afternoon “You can’t make this up” moment. While covering Congress’s rescission of an Obama administration coal and mining industry rule, the network ran footage from the disastrous government-caused 2015 Animas River spill in Colorado and New Mexico in the background.

As pathetic and embarrassing as that element of CNN’s report was, government regulation correspondent Rene Marsh’s one-sided and incomplete report as the Animas River footage ran behind her and The Lead host Jake Tapper was arguably worse.

(more…)

Positivity: Supreme Court nominee authored a book on assisted suicide

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 1:09 pm

From Washington, written by Media Research Center and NewsBusters alum Matt Hadro:

Feb 3, 2017 / 04:03 pm

President Donald Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court wrote a book on “the future of assisted suicide” in 2006 – and he came to some strong pro-life conclusions.

Judge Neil Gorsuch, in his 2006 book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” argues that “human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

Gorsuch was tapped by President Trump on Tuesday night to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year. The almost year-long vacancy on the Court was the longest in decades.

Religious liberty advocates hailed his selection, citing his previous opinions upholding the freedom of businesses and non-profits to operate according to their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Pro-life leaders also applauded his selection, admitting that he had not specifically ruled on the Roe v. Wade decision but pointing to his defense of human life in his 2006 book on assisted suicide.

In that book, Gorsuch makes strong statements in defense of protecting all human life, from disabled persons to depressed, terminally-ill patients. Rather than relying on religious reasoning, he takes a secular approach in his arguments.

He states that his book has two purposes: to examine the views of assisted suicide advocates – from utilitarian arguments to defenses of autonomy – and to provide his own views on why current prohibitions on assisted suicide and euthanasia should stand.

In Chapter 9 of the book, he lays out a defense of prohibitions of assisted suicide. His argument is “based on secular moral theory,” he says, and “is consistent with the common law and long-standing medical ethics.”

Life is a “basic good,” he argues, “inherently worthwhile” and which can be enjoyed by many and has been seen as a good throughout “human history.”

Aristotle defined goods this way, and “argued from life’s experiences and observations of human nature” rather than from “hypothetical construct.”

We see life as a good simply from our observation of fellow human beings, Gorsuch explains, noting that “people every day and in countless ways do something to protect human life.”

Laws prohibiting murder, traffic laws, and government health departments are all based in protections of human life, he argues.

“We have all witnessed, as well, family, friends, or medical workers who have chosen to provide years of loving care to persons who may suffer from Alzheimer’s or other debilitating illnesses precisely because they are human persons, not because doing so instrumentally advances some other hidden objective,” he continues.

“This is not to say that all persons would always make a similar choice, but the fact that some people have made such a choice is some evidence that life itself is a basic good.”

The founding documents of the United States, the Constitution, and foreign political documents express that life is a basic good and argue from pragmatic experience and history, he says: …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Saturday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (020417)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:00 am

This open thread is meant for commenters to post on items either briefly noted below (if any) or otherwise not covered at this blog. Rules are here.