Posts Tagged ‘KGMI’

Dancing on a Fine Line

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012

ms I just finished listening to a podcast of The Morning Show with Joe & Patti for 7/24/12 and from his surly attitude you’d think it was about time for  Joe Teehan to take a much needed vacation, but I guess he just got back.  The topic was our State’s newly announce plan to register voters via Facebook and as you might expect if you’ve heard the show, Joe & Patti were on opposite sides of the issue. Joe was arguing for making it easier for other demographics to register while Patti was concerned that using only a drivers license or state ID, which don’t establish citizenship, could lead to non-citizens illegally registering to vote.

I’m perfectly OK with streamlining the process as we did with all mail in ballots, online voting or even Facebook registration as long as the eligibility requirements can be proven to have been met. The requirement to vote in federal elections include being over 18 and a US citizen by either birth or naturalization. Currently a regular issue Washington state license isn’t proof of these requirements.

So what made this episode of Joe & Patti worth blog post?  It was the way that Joe danced along the line between promoting change and promoting illegal activity.   He argued strongly that just because a person was undocumented, commonly referred to as illegal, didn’t mean that they hadn’t contributed to society and therefore deserved a say in the direction of that society.   But as I listened I didn’t perceive any distinction between promoting the idea that non-citizens should be able to go out and vote and promoting the idea that non-citizens should go out and vote.  You’ll have to listen to the show for yourself to get the full effect because I won’t be taking the time to prepare a written transcript.

If I were to promote the idea that non-citizens should be able to go out and vote I’d be advocating for a change in law, but if I were promoting the idea that non-citizens should go out and vote I’d be encouraging someone to break a law.  There is a huge difference between I don’t like the law so let’s change it and I don’t like the law so let’s break it.  I think in a lot of cases encouraging someone to break a law is in itself a crime, so I would wonder if an undocumented person were to register to vote as direct result of Joe’s encouragement would he be guilty of something like voter fraud?   Would KGMI be liable for a radio personality going beyond expressing their opinion by encouraging criminal activity?

Another Look at that Planned Parenthood Chart

Monday, February 6th, 2012

care providedI’m talking about this chart that has been running around Facebook and other parts of the internet recently.  I’m certain it is showing up in response to a recent announcement by Susan G. Komen for the Cure that they would be pulling funding from Planned Parenthood(PPH).  I am not going to talk about why they pulled funding or why they have now reversed their decision, however I do want to address that chart and the misleading way that it is being used.

The chart shows that Planned Parenthood commits about 3% of it’s resources to abortion services and I don’t question it’s validity.  I do question the way that the 3% figure is used by abortion supporters.   They say things like we pro-lifers focus on the tiny little 3% and throw out all the good stuff that PPH does for women.  This was exactly the position that Joe Teehan took when he quoted this 3% number on the KGMI Morning Show with Joe & Patti and I believe the same argument was used again on his later airing Joe Show, where he interviewed local Planned Parenthood executive director Linda McCarthy.

So are they right?  Should pro-lifers ignore the 3% number as pro-abortion advocates such as Joe Teehan, Linda McCarthy and others suggest?

I’ve got to go with an emphatic NO as my answer because I don’t really care if it takes 3%, 30% or 100% of their resources each year to kill hundreds of thousands of children.   It’s like asking us to ignore a teacher who is molesting only 3 of their students because they are not molesting 97 other kids.  That’s what the people who use the 3% chart are saying to me and they are quite frankly sick.  What person in a right mental state is proud that they have become so efficient at killing unborn children, that they only have devote 3% of their resources?   WTH!  What next?  Apply “lean principles” and kill more children quicker using only 2% resources?

But set aside mental illness if you can and let’s look at the chart and data behind it in a more objective and less financial fashion.  The chart comes directly from what I believe is still the latest report out there from Planned Parenthood.  It is the same report I linked to in a previous blog post about Planned Parenthood’s access to our school age children.  Again, I don’t question the validity of the report, but an important thing to remember about the 3% of resources number does not accurately portray what goes on in the portion of PPH’s business that relates to pregnancy.  Here is some other quantity data, not financial data, from the same 2008 report that produced the 3% pie chart.

adoption versus abortion

My immediate reaction upon my first reading of the report was that Planned Parenthood had in one year participated in the murder of 324,008 unborn children.

So my second observation was that the ratio of Pregnancy Tests to Abortion Procedures is roughly 3:1.  In other words, the data shows that on average every  third pregnancy test administered resulted in Planned Parenthood aborting a child.  That is a frightening statistic in my mind and I’m actually giving PPH the benefit of the doubt since I’m assuming that all pregnancy tests were positive.  If only 1 in 3 were negative then the ratio of actual pregnancy to abortion would be 2:1.  How is that for Planned Parenthood family planning, if every other pregnant woman is given an abortion?

My next observation was also a ratio.  This time I looked at the ratio of Pregnancy Tests to Adoption Referrals and found it was roughly 462:1 and when you compare actual Abortion Procedures to Adoption Referrals the ratio is still at an astonishing 134:1.  In other words…well there aren’t any other words that can be written cleanly because PPH makes 134 referrals for the Abortion Procedure, for every 1 Adoption referral that they made.  That ratio of 134:1 tells me that Planned Parenthood has made a purposeful and conscious effort to ignore adoption.  I would expect no less from a business that performs abortions.  Remember that fact the next time someone says they are pro-choice and not pro-abortion.  Anyone who knowingly supports Planned Parenthood is not pro-choice they are pro-abortion because Planned Parenthood is 134:1 pro-abortion.

Those that are pro-abortion are not quite without “choice” though as Angie Murie, executive director of Planned Parenthood Waterloo Region in Canada had this to say about “choice” when it came to abortions,

“I wrestle with gender-based abortion more than any other reason [for having an abortion]…From a macro perspective, I don’t think it is a good idea for us to be eliminating women. But if you look at it at the individual level, which is what we do, I don’t have any right to say that one person’s reason is better or worse than another’s.”

Ok, back from that little tangent.  In looking at one of those 3% charts that showed up on Facebook, I was led to the Catholicvote.org site that also had comment on the above data as well as more information that is well worth reading and they even had a few charts of their own.

catholicvote chart

 

How do you not notice that the above chart represents about 2.5 million children aborted at the hands of Planned Parenthood over the last decade or so.  And how do you not notice that in the same decade or so that the number of abortions almost doubled, the number of referrals for prenatal care and adoption has consistently fallen.  Again, how do you call that kind of performance anything but pro-abortion.

And this was an interesting pie chart,

catholicvote chart 2And here’s how Catholicvote.org interpreted the data in their pie chart.

In other words, 96.3% of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women in 2008 were abortions, and the other 3.7% were adoptions and prenatal care (I’m not a math major so someone is welcome to review my calculations).

I’ll say it again, Planned Parenthood is pro-abortion!

So when you see that Planned Parenthood pie chart floating around cyberspace, remember that the 3% is simply a financial number,nothing more, and that it doesn’t paint an accurate portrayal of Planned Parenthood.

You might also ask what I say to the Joe Teehan’s of the world?  What do I say to those who argue that Planned Parenthood is primarily about women’s health issues and that people like me need to get over the abortion thing and quit ignoring all the good things that PPH does for women?   First I say that abortion is the primary issue that I have with Planned Parenthood because they are a significant abortion provider and because abortion is at odds with the very definition of being pro-life.  Killing unborn children is a non-negotiable issue.  I challenge them to help convince Planned Parenthood to quit aborting children and then step back and watch how much support they find coming from the left, the right and the middle for all the other good stuff.  As long as Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business, pro-life people will oppose them.  The will oppose them because as much as some would like us to believe, these children are not just lumps or masses of tissue.  They don’t magically become children when they are born and there is no set date during their fetal development when they become children.   Children are surviving earlier and earlier births every day as medical science advances.  I endorse this line of thought,

“Doesn’t simple morality dictate that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is? Therefore, it is entitled to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Ronald Reagan

It really is time for our nation recognize these children as children and put an end to this barbaric practice of voluntary abortion. There is only one answer in my mind and that is to honor the both the mother’s and child’s right to live.  Leave abortion legal only as a last resort family and medical decision in the rare case where a decision must be made between the life of the child and the mother.

Liberal Outpost – disrespecting our Nation

Monday, July 17th, 2006

As host of KGMI’s Liberal Outpost, you would expect Joe Teehan to disagree with many of our conservative President Bush’s policies. But the host takes it a step further by bad mouthing, name calling, bashing, and generally treating our President with disrespect? It’s worth noting that mudslinging is usually the practice of personally attacking the opposition when a rational attack on their policies and/or positions is ineffective.

For Joe mudslinging seems to be a scheduled part of his show. Even when he seems to have a great topic, he can’t let the hour go by without being derogatory towards our President. I occasionally listen to the show, but only make a point of listening when I know that there will be a substitute host. It’s curious that the substitute hosts can do the whole hour on substance alone. I don’t recall them ever resorting to name calling. Hmmm?

In the past I have emailed KGMI a few times and expressed my dissatisfaction with the host’s behavior. I also let them know that I felt his disagreeable behavior cast a negative light on KGMI in general. KGMI didn’t respond until I told them that I would be exercising my power as a listener and choosing not to do business with advertisers on the Liberal Outpost. Their response was along the line that they wanted to present all aspects of issues, alternate points of view, etc.  I can agree with their theory, but their execution, like Joe’s behavior, leaves much room for improvement

Here’s the letter I sent regarding the Liberal Outpost.

The other day I caught a bit of the show while I was doing some yard work. It sounded like Joe was explaining to your audience that if you disagree with President Bush then it is ok to be disrespectful. Joe has a program guide on the web that lists show topics and usually a quick jab at the President. The description for 7/11/06 read:

” Is the current promo for The Joe Teehan Show disrespectful to President Bush? Well, of course it is. But is that wrong in America. Must we ALWAYS show respect for the president regardless of his performance and policies? “

So it seems Joe’s overall disagreeable behavior stems from his notion that in America you needn’t show respect for those who don’t agree with you. Joe, you have your disrespecting work cut out for you ‘cause there are a whole lot of us out here that disagree with you on a whole lot of things.

And God help the waitress that brings Joe a dirty spoon, because we all know darn well that that is just poor performance and surely against restaurant policy!

I still try not to do business with advertisers on the Liberal Outpost. And if people ask, I tell them why.

Remember, it’s OK to disagree, just don’t be disagreeable.