Shocked and Angry at WTOP this morning

[Anonymous]

13:10 again. I hear you, 13:26 and agree that there's probably a line of rationality that "most" people would agree certain issues have crossed and no longer merit public debate on the airwaves (the examples you provided are good ones).

To me, though, as a society we're still very divided on issues like abortion or gay marriage (just to name two). It's very easy for folks on both sides of an issue like that to say "some POVs are just wrong" but that does nothing to advance the discussion/debate and sort out where as a society we are going to end up because obviously folks on both sides of the debate truly believe that they are right and the other side is wrong. As much as it does frustrate or anger me when I hear a commentary from the opposite POV on an issue like that, it does still make me at least momentarily sort through my own reactions to it.

[Anonymous]

I didn't hear the broadcast, but I can't believe there are actually people in American who think there are certain political POVs that just shouldn't be broadcast. That's why we have the first amendment, folks!!!!! Vile and incorrect views will die of their own accord in the marketplace of ideas. OF COURSE people are free to argue that Roe should be overturned, that women are intellectually inferior to men, and that the Holocaust was a good idea. You are free to refute their arguments or to ignore them (change the channel). Wouldn't you rather do that than live in a country where Big Brother decides what views you hear on the radio?

[Anonymous]

Science has advanced so much since Roe V. Wade and we now know that by the time we discover a pregnancy there is a heart beat. Babies that weren't considered viable in 1970s now are. I don't think it needs to be turned over but I could see making changes to abortion laws.

Abortions should still be legal, especially for those who's lives are endangered or for babies that will not survive.

There are fewer disabled children today because people are using abortion so they don't have to be bothered with children that aren't "normal.

I also think that women who are murdered while pregnant, with (very much) wanted children, that it constitute a double homicide. I understand that the hesitation to do this is because people don't want abortion doctors to be charged with murder. However when someone kills a woman in her last weeks of pregnancy that second life should be taken into consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Science has advanced so much since Roe V. Wade and we now know that by the time we discover a pregnancy there is a heart beat. Babies that weren't considered viable in 1970s now are. I don't think it needs to be turned over but I could see making changes to abortion laws.

Abortions should still be legal, especially for those who's lives are endangered or for babies that will not survive.

There are fewer disabled children today because people are using abortion so they don't have to be bothered with children that aren't "normal.

I also think that women who are murdered while pregnant, with (very much) wanted children, that it constitute a double homicide. I understand that the hesitation to do this is because people don't want abortion doctors to be charged with murder. However when someone kills a woman in her last weeks of pregnancy that second life should be taken into consideration.

Not quite true, fetal heartbeat begins in the 4th week after conception. Pregnancy can be detected earlier, if you're looking for it.

Frankly, I think that if a woman is murdered on her way to a clinic to have an abortion, it should still be a double murder--I firmly believe only the woman who is pregnant can make the decision to terminate. But not really the topic of this thread, so moving right along.....

[Anonymous]

*If* And you are off by a week. The heartbeat is detected in the fifth week of pregnancy or around three weeks after conception.

[Anonymous]

NP here. I'm on the fence about this. I tend to agree there should be a multiplicity of viewpoints so you can hear everything that people are thinking. On the other hand, the pp has got a point -- would it be okay to give radio time to someone who argues that women are intellectually inferior to men? Or to someone who thought the Holocaust was a good idea?

Both of these ideas could qualify as hate speech, depending on the time and circumstances. Neither is outlawed in this country. As such, any press outlet can carry the speech if they so choose - people don't have to listen, can complain, and, unless there is an audience, corporate radio won't broadcast such ideas without an audience. Call for a boycott, but don't call for outlawing the speech - free speech and freedom of the press, especially when it comes to political ideas, is the bedrock foundation of this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else catch Cal Thomas' segment on why the recent Supreme Court decision to give Corporations First Amendment rights is a step towards reversing Roe V. Wade? And that not only COULD it be a step toward reversing RVW but that the Supreme Court SHOULD reverse RVW?

I felt like I was listening to a Right to Life commercial. And I thought, "This is what they call 'commentary from BOTH sides of the aisle'."? Where's the equal time for NARAL?

Is there something I don't know about WTOP? Were they recently purchased by Fox or something? I see Cal Thomas' bio states he is affiliated with Fox..... does WTOP usually drift one way or another, Left or Right?

Now you know how I feel when I listen to NPR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now you know how I feel when I listen to NPR.

Actually, I don't. Can you give some examples comparable to, say, Britt Hume's rightliness [I know it's not a word, but I think it should be]? I confess that my inclination is to think that anyone left of Orrin Hatch looks like a flaming liberal to my friends on the right.

[Anonymous]

Of course I agree with free speech. What ticked me off about this segment was 1) it sounded like a "news" caster stating what policy SHOULD be. I listen to WTOP often and have never heard a commentator state that abortion SHOULD be legal.

If Cal's statements had been that some organizations, interest groups, this broadcaster included, believe that this opens the door to a reconsideration of RVW, that would be fine. But for someone on a NEWS show to be saying that RVW should be overturned without equal time given to an opposing opinon.... that was shocking to me.


And I don't listen to NPR. I listne to WTOP.

[Anonymous]

I think WTOP leans slightly right. There's a D-bag named Chris Core that's always spouting conservative blather on there (when he's not shilling aluminum siding or the like). The other day, he was commenting on that gossip-fest book, Game Change, lambasting John Edwards for having an affair even though the book also goes into detail about John and Cindy McCain's infidelities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think WTOP leans slightly right. There's a D-bag named Chris Core that's always spouting conservative blather on there (when he's not shilling aluminum siding or the like). The other day, he was commenting on that gossip-fest book, Game Change, lambasting John Edwards for having an affair even though the book also goes into detail about John and Cindy McCain's infidelities.

Actually I find Chris Core quite libertarian - and he takes on the Dems and GOP alike and calls it like he sees it. That's what we call opinion and commentary. And EVERYBODY is yacking about Game Change. Core couldn't care less about whether Edwards had an affair; it was the lying about it and his child who is a product of that affair that he took on. I happen to agree that a father who denies his own child is contemptible - I don't care what party he is in. The McCains were old news - the Edward's parental admission was brand new. Some perspective, please.

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I think that if a woman is murdered on her way to a clinic to have an abortion, it should still be a double murder--I firmly believe only the woman who is pregnant can make the decision to terminate. But not really the topic of this thread, so moving right along.....

I'm firmly pro-choice, and I have no idea how you reconcile the two sentiments in this thought. No idea at all. It's on of the screwiest things I have ever heard. There is absolutely no logic to it.