An autopsy confirmed almost everything about Terry Schiavo that was believed in the mainstream. Half her brain was gone, no signs of abuse or trauma. The only surprise was that there was no sign of a heart attack and no definitive cause for her collapse in the first place.

As soon as I heard this, early this morning, I couldn't help but think that the Right-To-Live believers would simply reject the autopsy out of hand.

I was right.

Seriously. Evidence? Who needs that. Belief is all that matters; belief is stronger than the best evidence, especially when that belief is a nationwide epidemic.
SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- Wildlife regulators took the first step Tuesday to bar hunters from using the Internet to shoot animals, responding to a Texas Web site that planned to let users fire at real game with the click of a mouse.

More here.

I ask you...WHAT THE FUCK? Remote hunting? Come ON.

If you're going to kill an animal, at least get out there, get in the mud, get your gear on, hold the rifle and actually shoot the damn thing yourself. Good grief.

The worst part is, half of me expects the Texas Web site in question is a joke.
"I don't look at it as censorship," says [Alabama] State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."

From here, via [livejournal.com profile] technocowboy.

Hey, it's a pile of shit. Let's call it a Home for Less Fortunate Organisms! Now people will support it!
"Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo. ... I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected.

"Especially those who live at the mercy of others. The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life."


Unless you're poor. Or gay.
This right-to-life or right-to-die case, however you look at it, is a complicated issue filled with a lot of misinformation.

A Florida Lawyer who keeps a blog about legal issues has been following the case, and has summarized the facts as the courts have found them.

This is a great page for getting to the real information in the case, about what the Florida courts have found in the case, and why they made the decisions they did. It tells what is currently known about the woman's state and where the argument is. It's a very interesting web page, and now I feel informed enough to pick a side.

[livejournal.com profile] strider13, after our conversation on Friday, you'll find this page very interesting; seems we both had a little misinformation of our own, and it should probably be corrected.

Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] bryant for the link!
From this study:

75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

There's more. It's worse. It's also clearly a partisan result, though I know nothing about the surveyors. They may or may not be partisan.
This one is so easy I don't need to actually say anything myself, except this: When you can't defend your position, attack those who think you are wrong.

"What a copout,'' Carlson said Monday. "On the one hand, he wants to play media critic and cultural critic, and on the other hand, if challenged, he retreats into 'I'm just a comedian' mode. I mean, that's pathetic.''

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)
Definition:

      The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
      argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
      person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
      Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
      gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
      attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

      There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
      (1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
      the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
      (2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
      assertion the author points to the relationship between the
      person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
      (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
      person notes that a person does not practise what he
      preaches.
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Reposted from [livejournal.com profile] bryant's journal, because I think everyone should read this and get just a little more understanding of Al Qaeda.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200409/cullison
From The Boston Globe

'Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we,'' Bush said. ''They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.''

Now -- this is probably an honest mistake. He said something different than he intended to say. Sure. What I find truly funny about this is thus:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush's misstatement ''just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak.''

''But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it,'' McClellan said.


To which I respond the American people most certainly do not know that.
Sure, it's from FOX news so maybe not so trustworthy...

Heavin denies giving any money to radical groups and said his company has nothing to do with the abortion debate. He’s accused Rosen and the Chronicle of trying to start a witchhunt.

The editors at the Chronicle are investigating Rosen’s column and Heavin’s complaints. Meanwhile, Curves is not ruling out legal action.
Recently I've read some people going "OH MY GOD I CAN'T GO TO CURVES ANYMORE" after learning that Curves' owner Gary Heavin supports militant pro-life groups.

Unfortunately for everyone involved, this information turns out to be inaccurate.

Thank you very much to [livejournal.com profile] snidegrrl who posted this link for me in a comment on [livejournal.com profile] evilhat's journal.

Curvers For Choice -- a collection of information including the Jon Carroll article that got things started. One thing specifically mentioned is that Jon Carroll did not do primary research and made some critical errors in his assessment.

Specifically, quoted from the above site:

Clearing up some misinformation from the press -- straight from Curves owners:

1. Curves International, the corporation, does not make any direct donations. Anywhere.

2. Gary Heavin does not have a relationship, at all, with Rusty Lee Thomas or with Operation Save America or Operation Rescue. He had one telephone conversation with Mr. Thomas, at least 6 months ago. No action was taken by Gary Heavin as a result of that conversation. They have not spoken since and Gary Heavin does not support those organizations in any way. The Internet letter that discusses the telephone call is inaccurate and was written by Mr. Thomas to promote his own purposes. It was also irresponsibly referred to by Jon Carroll, who did not do any primary research, but only relied on Google searches.

3. Gary Heavin does not support violence of any kind, as related to anti-choice issues.

4. Gary Heavin told club owners he believes in freedom of expression and that they are free to decide what to promote or support in their own clubs.


Please, spread this around to those who are boycotting Curves. This information may not be any more accurate than the original Jon Carroll information, as I have not done any primary research myself. However, I believe it's important for everyone to actually think about their actions and collecting information is vital to that process.
Inspired by and largely clipped from a discussion on [livejournal.com profile] 9thmoon's journal where I commented, but I feel more people need to know a little bit about history.

Marriage is not about religion.

The act of marriage has always been carried out religiously. St. Paul has something about that in the bible, and the whole Priest plus Two Witnesses wasn't even catholic law until 1563! The clever will note that is after Martin Luther and King Henry VIII.

Marriage is about the control of property and inheritance. It is about bloodlines in the sense that it allows a family to trace a clear path for inheritance; but that leads back to the fact that it's about property. Most of the world has arranged marriages that have 0 love in them at all--they are merely an alliance between two families for economic gain. It wasn't until the 12th century when Eleanor of Aquitaine wrote ballads that she spread throughout Europe via troubadors that the idea of courtly love and chivalry and whatnot came about.

Today, the act of marriage is more about love than it ever has been. But it is still about economics. Two people get married and they share property. They share responsibility, and there are inheritance issues. These issues still exist, no matter what the label put upon the union. But these are civil issues. Religion is not about inheritance (unless atheists cannot own property), nor is it about economic status (do not misinterpret this as saying that religious figures are not concerned about economy; they often consider it before truly religious matters). Marriage is a contract. It is between two people. Currently it is specifically between a male and a female but that definition of marriage is breaking down. And the reason it is breaking down is at the very core of what the definition of marriage is truly about. No matter how you slice it, no matter whether a couple are married by a judge, a catholic priest, a wiccan priest, a rabbi, a buddhist or by a non-religious member of the Church of Universal Love, marriage is an institution of economy, and that has always been and always will be the domain of government.

No, people; arguing (on either side) that marriage is about religion is the equivalent to arguing that the right to rule is about religion. And we separated that out when Henry VIII told the Pope to go screw, and we further separated that out in a small document known as the Constitution of the United States of America.
merlinofchaos: (Default)
Nov. 13th, 2003 08:55 pm
Try it out. You won't regret it.

Profile

merlinofchaos: (Default)
merlinofchaos

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 1 23456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 03:19 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios