Political quotes that really shouldn’t be made public
awful @MeetThePress
premise this morning: we're "divided" over Covid and
masks! we're not: 70% have a shot. 70% support masks.
Eric
Boehlert
The problem with the
crush of COVID-19 patients using up most of the available ICU beds*
and crowding out emergency facilities is that it’s all so
unnecessary.
*Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Florida and Arkansas are
nearly out of ICU beds as Covid-19 cases surge across the US —
particularly among unvaccinated Americans.
CNN
Here
are the ICU beds that are occupied just by Covid patients
in each of 14 states. Now, if you’re vaccinated and catch even the
dreaded Delta Variant of the coronavirus, it might still result in
some unpleasantness, but you’re unlikely even to have to go to the
hospital.
To say that
Americans are “divided” is to suggest that both sides have good
reason to feel the way they do. That, for instance, taking
Ivermectin, a cow de-wormer that yes, people can safely take under
some very specific circumstances, but that the FDA
says please don’t use it for Covid, is a reasonable and
rational choice. It isn’t. It’ completely insane to think that
the vaccines that the US went to great length to produce and to
safety-test and to test for efficacy is less safe or effective than a
quack cure pushed by Fox News and other conservative commenters.
There’s also a
problem with a claim that anti-choicers/forced birthers make, that
the new Texas “snitch” law “...bans abortion after a fetal
heartbeat is detected, which is usually after about six weeks of
pregnancy, before many women are even aware they are pregnant."
As the
C&L piece points out, a six week-old embryo (It won’t
become a fetus for another month) doesn’t actually have a heart!
The rhythmic sound that can be heard is "a group of cells with
electrical activity. That's what the heartbeat is at that stage of
gestation … We are in no way talking about any kind of
cardiovascular system." That's all from Jennifer Kerns, an
ob-gyn at University of California, San Francisco and director of
research in obstetrics and gynecology
There’s absolutely
no question that the people who came up with the term did so
consciously and deliberately, with malice and forethought. But why
mainstream news reporters keep mindlessly repeating that “fetuses”
have a heartbeat after six weeks is a real puzzle. This is a claim
that fails a very simple true/false test.
Another recent
problem is that the Texas “snitch” law didn’t just suddenly pop
up out of the blue. The law was passed back in May. The course it
took to the Supreme Court was publicly documented. Yet, the Supreme
Court decision landed like a bombshell because, apparently, the
press was so wholly and completely absorbed in the withdrawal from
Afghanistan (a legitimate and worthwhile story) that it just
didn’t have any time or attention to spare for the gutting of a
Supreme Court ruling that’s been in effect since 1973. The press
played catch-up with a number of pieces after the ruling was
made, but there was absolutely no need for it to have been such a
surprise.
Why does this
happen? Why does the press constantly use right-wing talking points
that are completely bonkers or ignore a clearly important issue that
will obviously have a great impact? My own personal theory is that
media people like to run stories through people they feel are outside
experts, who are always free to chat and who provide
authoritative-sounding quotes. In other words, reporters have
right-wing “friends” who have cultivated close relationships with
them and who assure them that a fetal heartbeat at six weeks is a
real thing and who discourage putting out pieces on something like
the Texas “snitch” law that will make right-wingers look bad (Fox
News apparently
realized how unpopular the new law was as they didn’t mention
it for quite awhile). Reporters don’t need to stop talking with
right-wing “friends.” What reporters need to do is to get
friends on the “other side of the aisle” who can provide
corrections and equally authoritative-sounding quotes.