I would like to call your attention to the altar. Read the whole story.
H/T to my lovely wife.
Welcome message
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Is Martial Law Coming?
Something tells me that martial law is gonna be declared before Mr. Obama leaves office. Which means, he won't be leaving office, because elections are going to be suspended along with the rest of the Constitution.
Now, I tend to be a little paranoid by nature, and I don't have any crystal ball, and I certainly am not political analyst or pundit. But this post explains why I think this.
There have been quite a few violent and crazy attacks lately, with many many threats in various places. Just today my train conductor asked everyone to take their garbage off the train - he does that every day - but today he added, "Because everything's a suspicious package these days, and we don't need that."
Martial law will be seen as the only way of protecting public safety.
Martial law will require giving up many rights.
I am not totally crazy. Here's the good ol' mayor of the Big Apple saying that we need to be willing to give up our liberties for security. It is better to giver up our Constitutional rights so we can go to a sporting event in safety. Or have the Constitution reinterpreted so as to allow for greater security but fewer rights.
Don't kid yourself. This is NOT about safety. It's about gun control.
I personally do not believe that safety and security need to infringe upon freedom. I do not believe the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted to let the government provide for our safety. I believe the Constitution needs to be reapplied, which is to say, what it says needs to be applied according to what it says and not what it has been interpreted to mean over the last several decades.
Here's Melissa Perry saying that parents do not have the right to raise their own kids, it's the job of the government. (Oh sorry. That's Melissa Harris-Perry.)
Now, yes, the principle of solidarity means that I have to care about my neighbors and their kids pretty much "as if" they were mine. That is what "love your neighbor as yourself" means. On the other hand, the most personal of all aspects of the family is the children of the parents. NO ONE has a right to take my kids and raise (read: brainwash) them. No, not even the government. No, not my neighbors who fear than in homeschooling my kids "I" am brainwashing them against... against... what?
Against what they teach in public schools? Not really - what we teach them is math, science, history, literature, writing, logic, philosophy, religion, what used to be called civics - and nothing we do has any reference whatsoever to what they do in public schools. We do NOT monitor public school curricula and actively counter it. We teach our kids the way ALL AMERICAN KIDS USED TO BE TAUGHT, and the doctrines of the Catholic faith, and we do NOT give a FIG about what the public schools teach kids who go there. That's not entirely true. We do care, it's just that we're not choosing our curriculum in reference to theirs. Rather, it is the public school system that monitors US and is AFRAID of what we are teaching our kids and wants to CONTROL it.
Here's a host on NPR comparing the Constitution to Tinkerbell (...and that after talking to audiences of pot smokers and homosexuals...). Why? Because the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, as long as we take action and cram that meaning down other peoples' throats. "Let's keep clapping and keep it alive!! I DO believe in fairies!!" Ugh.
In all three cases, no one is recommending trying to understand the Constitution and apply it. No, they espouse an ideology that the plain meaning of the Constitution is getting in the way of certain agendas - all of them left-wing, by the way - and that meaning is unjust and wrong. If they can't get their way by changing the Constitution itself through Constitutional processes then they'll change what it means through the courts - and then work on preventing a change back to some other meaning.
And they have been doing this for a long time. DECADES. This is what Bob Dole in 1996 and Bush II in 2000 and 2004, and McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 called "judicial activism," and what their opponents denied was happening.
These are the first steps down a well-plotted route (and not a slippery slope). The very principle of "things mean what we want them to mean" is being floated, with the Constitution as the object of manipulation.
Martial law will come, in one form or another. Slowly or quickly, it will come.
Martial law will make blogs like mine acts of treason. It will make being a real Christian an act of treason. In particular, it will make being a Catholic, with allegiance to the Pope, an act of treason. If you have religion, you will have to belong to one of the state-approved religions that bow to the authority of the government to define their doctrines and determine their leadership.
Martial law will require law enforcement webcams everywhere - including in everyone's home, which will be illegal to obscure, turn off, or unplug. Yes, those days are coming. 1984, 30 years late. That will be the day I shut off the internet in my house altogether. Yet another act of treason, probably. Of course it will begin like this: The local police in concert with security companies will recommend that homeowners have web-based cameras in and around their homes, for security reasons. Then those recommendations will get stronger, and there will be a rash of crimes at "unprotected" homes. Will these crimes be staged? Who knows. Then these crimes will "get out of hand" and there will be a requirement that such surveillance be installed at least outside the home. And then... well, you see where this is going.
I am afraid that the Land of the Free will become a thing of history.
But I am certain that it remain the Home of the Brave.
I made a comment on LifeSite News for the story of the Belgian bishop, noting that such tactics are the seeds of the failure of the movement. Just like the Brown Shirts were the seeds of the eventual overthrow of the Nazis. Sure, there might be great success for a while, but in the end people will get sick of kowtowing to a**holes.
Martial law will attempt to confiscate all the guns. Martial law will enforce the government monopoly on education and indoctrination. Martial law will regulate religions.
But it will not succeed, because it will result in civil war.
Make your choice now. If it comes to it, what will you do? Fight, go to jail, be tried for treason? Or go along with everyone, hoping it's only temporary? It was temporary in Russia, too. But it lasted 70 years. And it's still going strong in China and North Korea.
Now, I tend to be a little paranoid by nature, and I don't have any crystal ball, and I certainly am not political analyst or pundit. But this post explains why I think this.
There have been quite a few violent and crazy attacks lately, with many many threats in various places. Just today my train conductor asked everyone to take their garbage off the train - he does that every day - but today he added, "Because everything's a suspicious package these days, and we don't need that."
Martial law will be seen as the only way of protecting public safety.
Martial law will require giving up many rights.
I am not totally crazy. Here's the good ol' mayor of the Big Apple saying that we need to be willing to give up our liberties for security. It is better to giver up our Constitutional rights so we can go to a sporting event in safety. Or have the Constitution reinterpreted so as to allow for greater security but fewer rights.
Don't kid yourself. This is NOT about safety. It's about gun control.
I personally do not believe that safety and security need to infringe upon freedom. I do not believe the Constitution needs to be reinterpreted to let the government provide for our safety. I believe the Constitution needs to be reapplied, which is to say, what it says needs to be applied according to what it says and not what it has been interpreted to mean over the last several decades.
Here's Melissa Perry saying that parents do not have the right to raise their own kids, it's the job of the government. (Oh sorry. That's Melissa Harris-Perry.)
Now, yes, the principle of solidarity means that I have to care about my neighbors and their kids pretty much "as if" they were mine. That is what "love your neighbor as yourself" means. On the other hand, the most personal of all aspects of the family is the children of the parents. NO ONE has a right to take my kids and raise (read: brainwash) them. No, not even the government. No, not my neighbors who fear than in homeschooling my kids "I" am brainwashing them against... against... what?
Against what they teach in public schools? Not really - what we teach them is math, science, history, literature, writing, logic, philosophy, religion, what used to be called civics - and nothing we do has any reference whatsoever to what they do in public schools. We do NOT monitor public school curricula and actively counter it. We teach our kids the way ALL AMERICAN KIDS USED TO BE TAUGHT, and the doctrines of the Catholic faith, and we do NOT give a FIG about what the public schools teach kids who go there. That's not entirely true. We do care, it's just that we're not choosing our curriculum in reference to theirs. Rather, it is the public school system that monitors US and is AFRAID of what we are teaching our kids and wants to CONTROL it.
Here's a host on NPR comparing the Constitution to Tinkerbell (...and that after talking to audiences of pot smokers and homosexuals...). Why? Because the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, as long as we take action and cram that meaning down other peoples' throats. "Let's keep clapping and keep it alive!! I DO believe in fairies!!" Ugh.
In all three cases, no one is recommending trying to understand the Constitution and apply it. No, they espouse an ideology that the plain meaning of the Constitution is getting in the way of certain agendas - all of them left-wing, by the way - and that meaning is unjust and wrong. If they can't get their way by changing the Constitution itself through Constitutional processes then they'll change what it means through the courts - and then work on preventing a change back to some other meaning.
And they have been doing this for a long time. DECADES. This is what Bob Dole in 1996 and Bush II in 2000 and 2004, and McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 called "judicial activism," and what their opponents denied was happening.
These are the first steps down a well-plotted route (and not a slippery slope). The very principle of "things mean what we want them to mean" is being floated, with the Constitution as the object of manipulation.
Martial law will come, in one form or another. Slowly or quickly, it will come.
Martial law will make blogs like mine acts of treason. It will make being a real Christian an act of treason. In particular, it will make being a Catholic, with allegiance to the Pope, an act of treason. If you have religion, you will have to belong to one of the state-approved religions that bow to the authority of the government to define their doctrines and determine their leadership.
Maybe "it can't happen here," but of course it can. It is happening in Belgium. Here's a story of a bishop who stands with the Church against the gay rights agenda there, who was at an event at a university, and who was attacked by topless female protesters - and he just sat there and took it. It took several minutes for security to remove the assailants. Why didn't they respond immediately? Who knows. Maybe they enjoyed watching the bishop get attacked or wanted to let the assailants make thier point. God bless him. What a courageous fellow. And for the last couple of decades, I thought I'd never say that about a Belgian - in fact, any European - Catholic bishop. This guy was charged with racism in 2008 because of his consistency with the Catholic faith. He was later acquitted, but it's only a matter of time before he and others get convicted.
And it IS happening here. In Columbus, OH. Anti-discrimination laws will trump religious freedom. Look, homosexuals may "be" they way they are and have not a choice, but their actions are choices, and actions can conform or not conform to the doctrines of a religion. All laws discriminate according to actions. ALL LAWS. Does the law discriminate against bigots for being bigots, or against what a bigot does? Exactly. The Catholic Church should be free to discriminate just like the law does according to people's actions, in accord with its doctrines. This is part of religious freedom.
I am afraid that the Land of the Free will become a thing of history.
But I am certain that it remain the Home of the Brave.
I made a comment on LifeSite News for the story of the Belgian bishop, noting that such tactics are the seeds of the failure of the movement. Just like the Brown Shirts were the seeds of the eventual overthrow of the Nazis. Sure, there might be great success for a while, but in the end people will get sick of kowtowing to a**holes.
Martial law will attempt to confiscate all the guns. Martial law will enforce the government monopoly on education and indoctrination. Martial law will regulate religions.
But it will not succeed, because it will result in civil war.
Make your choice now. If it comes to it, what will you do? Fight, go to jail, be tried for treason? Or go along with everyone, hoping it's only temporary? It was temporary in Russia, too. But it lasted 70 years. And it's still going strong in China and North Korea.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Minnesota's Anti-Bullying Law - Let the Bullying Begin
Remember when that Dan Savage (soooo aptly named!) used bullying to try to get kids to stop bullying?
Well, now there's legislation in Minnesota that will basically give legal protection to that kind of bullying. (I am linking to Fr. Z's blog where you can find more links to the original information.)
While no one of an ethical mind will justify bullying per se, the anti-bullying movement is really not about bullying per se. After all, bullying is and always has been wrong and bad, and bullies have always been seen as jerks. No one likes them. People are their friends out of fear rather than affection. And what they do to others is mean - it is assault. Verbal bullying is a kind of assault. We have laws against assault that have nothing to do with the assailant's intentions or thoughts or motives, nor anything to do with the victim's religion or sexual preferences or whatever. Does it really matter if someone assaults someone else because the victim has a speech impediment or because he want's the victim's money? No. Assault is assault, and other things are irrelevant.
But "bullying" is a particular kind of assault. Laws against bullying list the kinds of people who are protected from bullying, and assign a motive of hate to the bully.
OK, so a kid is gay. Others bully him for it. Is it not enough to simply to enforce laws against assault or harassment or verbal abuse or intimidation or whatever? Do we have to have a special crime to protect gay people from people who don't like them?
Is not liking gay people - is disagreeing with the gay rights agenda - a hate crime?
You watch.
Proponents of gay rights will use anti-bullying laws to bully opponents of gay rights into silence, into acceptance, and into compliance with indoctrination to their agenda.
And what I say isn't about whether the gay rights agenda is good or not. It's about whether or not we as a society need laws through which people who disagree with the gay rights agenda can be bullied by the law into compliance.
Bullies come in all shapes and sizes. And what more could a bully want than to have the law endorse his bullying?
Will the anti-bullying legislation be on my side or against me, if I offer arguments against gay marriage or why being sexually active outside of (man-woman) marriage with anyone (which would include homosexual activity) is morally wrong?
Who is the real homophobe: Someone who in the face of bullying complies with the gay rights agenda, or someone who fearlessly opposes it?
Will anti-bullying laws protect me from bullies who disagree with me and hate me? Or will it enable those bullies to stomp on my free speech, my freedom of association, my freedom of religion, because by engaging in those things I'm guilty of bullying them?
You watch.
It began with the notion of "hate crimes." Look, if someone burns a swastika on someone else's front yard, are there not laws against vandalism, intimidation, and the like, that would prohibit that action? I abhor such crimes, by the way.
But do we need to make the perpetrator's interior thoughts a crime, too? Does not doing so make THOUGHTS something for the law to intervene on?
After "hate crimes" comes bullying, a milder form of hate crime. Well, if we have hate crimes, do we need anti-bullying laws? Is this not yet another step down the road of legally controlling what people think and believe?
Slippery slope, my backside. This is a well-determined path that society is being pushed on by people who know exactly where they are going.
Well, now there's legislation in Minnesota that will basically give legal protection to that kind of bullying. (I am linking to Fr. Z's blog where you can find more links to the original information.)
While no one of an ethical mind will justify bullying per se, the anti-bullying movement is really not about bullying per se. After all, bullying is and always has been wrong and bad, and bullies have always been seen as jerks. No one likes them. People are their friends out of fear rather than affection. And what they do to others is mean - it is assault. Verbal bullying is a kind of assault. We have laws against assault that have nothing to do with the assailant's intentions or thoughts or motives, nor anything to do with the victim's religion or sexual preferences or whatever. Does it really matter if someone assaults someone else because the victim has a speech impediment or because he want's the victim's money? No. Assault is assault, and other things are irrelevant.
But "bullying" is a particular kind of assault. Laws against bullying list the kinds of people who are protected from bullying, and assign a motive of hate to the bully.
OK, so a kid is gay. Others bully him for it. Is it not enough to simply to enforce laws against assault or harassment or verbal abuse or intimidation or whatever? Do we have to have a special crime to protect gay people from people who don't like them?
Is not liking gay people - is disagreeing with the gay rights agenda - a hate crime?
You watch.
Proponents of gay rights will use anti-bullying laws to bully opponents of gay rights into silence, into acceptance, and into compliance with indoctrination to their agenda.
And what I say isn't about whether the gay rights agenda is good or not. It's about whether or not we as a society need laws through which people who disagree with the gay rights agenda can be bullied by the law into compliance.
Bullies come in all shapes and sizes. And what more could a bully want than to have the law endorse his bullying?
Will the anti-bullying legislation be on my side or against me, if I offer arguments against gay marriage or why being sexually active outside of (man-woman) marriage with anyone (which would include homosexual activity) is morally wrong?
Who is the real homophobe: Someone who in the face of bullying complies with the gay rights agenda, or someone who fearlessly opposes it?
Will anti-bullying laws protect me from bullies who disagree with me and hate me? Or will it enable those bullies to stomp on my free speech, my freedom of association, my freedom of religion, because by engaging in those things I'm guilty of bullying them?
You watch.
It began with the notion of "hate crimes." Look, if someone burns a swastika on someone else's front yard, are there not laws against vandalism, intimidation, and the like, that would prohibit that action? I abhor such crimes, by the way.
But do we need to make the perpetrator's interior thoughts a crime, too? Does not doing so make THOUGHTS something for the law to intervene on?
After "hate crimes" comes bullying, a milder form of hate crime. Well, if we have hate crimes, do we need anti-bullying laws? Is this not yet another step down the road of legally controlling what people think and believe?
Slippery slope, my backside. This is a well-determined path that society is being pushed on by people who know exactly where they are going.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Proposed Wisconsin stem cell law "problematic"?
Some Wisconsin legislators want to pass a law prohibiting the use of tissues - particularly stem cells - obtained from abortions in research. It does not prohibit all fetal or embryonic stem cell research, just research on tissues obtained from abortions.
On LinkedIn's Bioethics Connections group page, there is a brief post about this legislation. You might have to be a member of LinkedIn to follow the link. There, Bernard Siegel, a lawyer who once served as the President and Commissioner of Florida Championship Wrestling and Pro-Beach Wrestling (now called NXT) and who is now executive director of Genetics Policy Institute, has this to say:
On LinkedIn's Bioethics Connections group page, there is a brief post about this legislation. You might have to be a member of LinkedIn to follow the link. There, Bernard Siegel, a lawyer who once served as the President and Commissioner of Florida Championship Wrestling and Pro-Beach Wrestling (now called NXT) and who is now executive director of Genetics Policy Institute, has this to say:
Problematic Wisconsin proposal would politicize fetal tissue research. This type of legislation could become a trend in the states. It serves to inflame the public against scientists and will negatively impact potential lifesaving research. Raises unwarranted questions about previously ethically approved research.Where to start?
OK let's start with a question: Do abortion facilities charge money for the tissues they provide for research? This is important, because where there is a money stream under threat by legislation, there is often a propaganda mill that will oppose it.
Surprise, surprise, abortion facilities seem to be making money off of this. Technically, they cannot charge a fee for the actual tissues, but they can charge fees for services and the use of their facilities to identify and harvest the desired tissues. There is usually a middle-man between the researchers and the abortionists, who pays the abortionist a site fee for using his clinic, and who in turn charges a service fee to the researchers. I don't know what all those fees amount to, but the abortionist makes more money than by performing the abortions alone, and the middle-man charges more than he pays out. And so it seems to be profitable, considering that the fate of the tissues otherwise is medical waste that an abortion facility needs to pay for to have removed properly.
And let's not forget that there are also streams of public and private grants that researchers can get if they have the tissues to research on.
So there is a lot of money at stake, all dependent upon abortion and the legality of using tissues from abortions.
And Mr. Siegel his organization could be part of it, if their revenue stream depends on advocating what the legislation prohibits.
I guess that's what Mr. Siegel meant by "problematic."
And surprise, surprise, we all know the power of the abortion propaganda machine. Planned Parenthood is the biggest bully in the nation. Just ask the Komen Foundation.
Now, let's be fair. Legislation works two ways - it could harm someone's revenue stream, it could enhance someone's revenue stream, or it could do both to different parties. So it's a fair question to ask if anybody stand to gain, financially speaking, from this legislation?
Not directly. The legislation might result in - but does not mandate - investment in other lines of research, but if stem cell researchers are really smart, they should be doing that sort of research themselves even if they also do research on embryonic or fetal tissues.
It "could become a trend." Horrors. Would that it did.
It "serves to inflame the public against scientists" - oh, give me a break. What nonsense. Yeah, we're all gonna start rounding up scientists and burning them at the stake because of this. No. Just the scientists who have no problem destroying living human individuals for research. And it seems to me that the public ought to be inflamed against them.
I find it funny sometimes, but when people accuse others of things, it is usually to distract from themselves engaging in that very thing. So, when the left calls the right Nazis, it's because they're using Nazi tactics (such as shouting down adversaries) and advocating Nazi-like policies (such as euthanasia and state-run raising of everyone's kids). Or like that guy Dan Savage who uses bullying to call people he disagrees with bullies. Or accusing people who are not afraid of homosexuals in the least and who have no problems with homosexuals whatsoever homophobes for not, like themselves, kowtowing to the gay rights movement for fear of backlash.
And it "will negatively impact potential lifesaving research" - ok, here's the biggie: WHAT potential lifesaving research? SERIOUSLY: I have been following in one way or another the use of fetal or embryonic cells for treatments of various diseases for about 20 years. And just where is this therapeutic potential? So far, there is NONE. Only theories. Only possibilities. Only promises. Empty promises. And when controversial tissues are outlawed, people are accused of thwarting research into lifesaving treatments.
Talk about inflaming the public. See what I mean? He's doing exactly what he's accusing others of doing.
As far as I can tell, only two human studies using embryonic stem cells have been conducted. One was from Geron using embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injuries. It was terminated early for undisclosed reasons. The other was from Advanced Cell Technology for blindness. The early results involved two patients. They are still recruiting and should have data published some time next year, but their website has little news or updates. At any rate, there is no reason to believe that this disease can only be treated by embryonic stem cells with it being impossible to treat with other stem cell sources. But then again, I'm no expert on macular degeneration.
Meanwhile, adult stem cells - those naturally produced by the body - have been used to treat diseases for decades, and are widely used now to treat dozens of diseases. When you hear "bone marrow transplant" you are hearing about adult stem cell therapy. I am finding it difficult to quantify, but one source (which I'd like to verify independently but haven't been able to) listed 65 diseases as of 2005. A lot has happened in this field since 2005. If 65 is wrong, it's probably low.
And this research "raises unwarranted questions about previously ethically approved research." I think the questions are VERY warranted. Ethically approved by whom, by the way? People who use "ethics" to mean "let's find a plausible way of justifying what we want to do so we can ridicule naysayers into silence"? OK, I can buy that.
Yep. That's the state of bioethics today. Follow the frickin' money and see who squeals when you try to take it away. Money. Propaganda. Accusations. Rationalizations.
And where is assessing the right and wrong of an intended action as it pertains to human life and health?
Me neither.
Talk about inflaming the public. See what I mean? He's doing exactly what he's accusing others of doing.
As far as I can tell, only two human studies using embryonic stem cells have been conducted. One was from Geron using embryonic stem cells to treat spinal cord injuries. It was terminated early for undisclosed reasons. The other was from Advanced Cell Technology for blindness. The early results involved two patients. They are still recruiting and should have data published some time next year, but their website has little news or updates. At any rate, there is no reason to believe that this disease can only be treated by embryonic stem cells with it being impossible to treat with other stem cell sources. But then again, I'm no expert on macular degeneration.
Meanwhile, adult stem cells - those naturally produced by the body - have been used to treat diseases for decades, and are widely used now to treat dozens of diseases. When you hear "bone marrow transplant" you are hearing about adult stem cell therapy. I am finding it difficult to quantify, but one source (which I'd like to verify independently but haven't been able to) listed 65 diseases as of 2005. A lot has happened in this field since 2005. If 65 is wrong, it's probably low.
And this research "raises unwarranted questions about previously ethically approved research." I think the questions are VERY warranted. Ethically approved by whom, by the way? People who use "ethics" to mean "let's find a plausible way of justifying what we want to do so we can ridicule naysayers into silence"? OK, I can buy that.
Yep. That's the state of bioethics today. Follow the frickin' money and see who squeals when you try to take it away. Money. Propaganda. Accusations. Rationalizations.
And where is assessing the right and wrong of an intended action as it pertains to human life and health?
Me neither.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Washington Post, Gosnell, and the media blackout
I put a comment over at Get Religion about Mollie's review of a recent Washington Post article trying to get to the bottom of the dearth of media coverage of the Gosnell trial.
I'm gonna make an observation about the WaPo article and then a speculation, both of which are going to make me sound sexist or something - but I'm not. So, forgive me.
Farhi (the author of the article) has quotes from various media spokespeople offering explanations (or non-explanation explanations, if you will) for the dearth of coverage. Every one of them, except for Martin Baron of the Washington Post itself, was a woman. CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC all had female spokespeople whom Farhi named, all with lame reasons or, unbelievably, claims that the coverage was good. There was also one unnamed spokeswoman for HLN, who said the Arias trial would get wall-to-wall coverage until it's over "to respond [and] deliver to viewer interest."
So here's the speculation, and what I said at Get Religion. I am beginning to wonder if the main reason the mainstream media have been avoiding this case is really political bias. A lot of people – including men – have been personally involved with abortion – I’m speaking about the women who have had one and the men who have allowed, facilitated, or pressured the choice. A lot of people in the media, both “liberal” and “conservative” would probably fall into this category. And let’s face it, it’s not just left-leaning media that are shying away from covering this case. I doubt the abortion was really pleasant for any of them. Although some may be comfortable and confident with their choice, others may view the experience with regret and pain, and virtually none recall it as happy. And some in the first category may not be as confident as they want to believe…. I wonder now, having read the article, if there’s a reluctance to approach this case because it make people face abortion in a new and very personal way.
Anyway, I am willing to consider it is not merely “institutional media bias,” but something very personal, very human, and very real to the human beings who work for these media.
This is an eye-opening, and also a wound-opening, case.
I'm gonna make an observation about the WaPo article and then a speculation, both of which are going to make me sound sexist or something - but I'm not. So, forgive me.
Farhi (the author of the article) has quotes from various media spokespeople offering explanations (or non-explanation explanations, if you will) for the dearth of coverage. Every one of them, except for Martin Baron of the Washington Post itself, was a woman. CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC all had female spokespeople whom Farhi named, all with lame reasons or, unbelievably, claims that the coverage was good. There was also one unnamed spokeswoman for HLN, who said the Arias trial would get wall-to-wall coverage until it's over "to respond [and] deliver to viewer interest."
So here's the speculation, and what I said at Get Religion. I am beginning to wonder if the main reason the mainstream media have been avoiding this case is really political bias. A lot of people – including men – have been personally involved with abortion – I’m speaking about the women who have had one and the men who have allowed, facilitated, or pressured the choice. A lot of people in the media, both “liberal” and “conservative” would probably fall into this category. And let’s face it, it’s not just left-leaning media that are shying away from covering this case. I doubt the abortion was really pleasant for any of them. Although some may be comfortable and confident with their choice, others may view the experience with regret and pain, and virtually none recall it as happy. And some in the first category may not be as confident as they want to believe…. I wonder now, having read the article, if there’s a reluctance to approach this case because it make people face abortion in a new and very personal way.
Anyway, I am willing to consider it is not merely “institutional media bias,” but something very personal, very human, and very real to the human beings who work for these media.
This is an eye-opening, and also a wound-opening, case.
Unanswered questions about euthanasia
Having interacted with advocates of euthanasia, I remain unconvinced that it is a practice worthy of human beings and any society that can call itself civilized. I hear arguments of mercy, respect for autonomy, and the like, and I understand them. But I remain against euthanasia - strongly so - until the following questions be resolved.
First: How does one respect autonomy by destroying it? Euthanasia erases any possibility of autonomous action after it is administered, because the autonomous person will be dead. Dead people are not autonomous. (The living who administer euthanasia, however, go on living autonomous lives, and where it is legal, their autonomy is not hampered by the law.)
Second: In like manner, how does one claim to alleviate suffering when one ignores the suffering itself and instead ends the sufferer? When the person is dead, yes, the suffering is gone - along with autonomy, by the way - because the person is gone. I guess that's a way to cure the common cold, too, right? OK, that's a little flip, but the principle is the same: It is not a treatment for the disease when one kills the person who has the disease. In fact, the person himself is treated like a disease, by the living who administer the euthanasia, who by the way unlike the patient continue to live afterward free of the patient's suffering.
Third: How does destroying a thing reflect how much one values it? The comparison to animal euthanasia is often made. And while a family would love to have a beloved family pet continue to live, the fact of the matter is that euthanizing it is not only about the suffering of the pet. Believe me, I do get this, I understand. But... deep down... it is also about the value of the pet to the family. As beloved as the pet may be - when healthy - it does become valueless when dreadfully sick or injured, and there is no value in keeping it alive. If there were value in having a sick pet around more than euthanizing it, there would far less animal euthanasia, too.
Fourth: There is the meaning of suffering. Is suffering intrinsically meaningless? Does it have meaning "only if" the sufferer gives it meaning? Is it really a matter of choice?
Especially regarding the last question, but pertaining to them all, I think I know the unspoken premise behind these arguments. Even so, they are not necessarily compelling because they still look like logical contradictions - but they make more sense at least only if... well, I'll let you figure it out.
First: How does one respect autonomy by destroying it? Euthanasia erases any possibility of autonomous action after it is administered, because the autonomous person will be dead. Dead people are not autonomous. (The living who administer euthanasia, however, go on living autonomous lives, and where it is legal, their autonomy is not hampered by the law.)
Second: In like manner, how does one claim to alleviate suffering when one ignores the suffering itself and instead ends the sufferer? When the person is dead, yes, the suffering is gone - along with autonomy, by the way - because the person is gone. I guess that's a way to cure the common cold, too, right? OK, that's a little flip, but the principle is the same: It is not a treatment for the disease when one kills the person who has the disease. In fact, the person himself is treated like a disease, by the living who administer the euthanasia, who by the way unlike the patient continue to live afterward free of the patient's suffering.
Third: How does destroying a thing reflect how much one values it? The comparison to animal euthanasia is often made. And while a family would love to have a beloved family pet continue to live, the fact of the matter is that euthanizing it is not only about the suffering of the pet. Believe me, I do get this, I understand. But... deep down... it is also about the value of the pet to the family. As beloved as the pet may be - when healthy - it does become valueless when dreadfully sick or injured, and there is no value in keeping it alive. If there were value in having a sick pet around more than euthanizing it, there would far less animal euthanasia, too.
Fourth: There is the meaning of suffering. Is suffering intrinsically meaningless? Does it have meaning "only if" the sufferer gives it meaning? Is it really a matter of choice?
Especially regarding the last question, but pertaining to them all, I think I know the unspoken premise behind these arguments. Even so, they are not necessarily compelling because they still look like logical contradictions - but they make more sense at least only if... well, I'll let you figure it out.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Gosnell abortion murder trial - links to media blackout info
The most horrific murder trial of the 21st Century involving the defining bioethical issue of our age is going on in Philadelphia, and the media - particularly the left-leaning media - are not covering it. Here are some links of interest:
First of all, go to Get Religion - Mollie's coverage of the media blackout has the makings of a Pulitzer Prize sensation, if the scandal weren't about the media itself. Keep at it, Mollie!!! She's contacted reporters, gotten tweets back - go see, it's educational.
USAToday - gotta give them kudos when they deserve them - has a column about the loss of perspective of what belongs on the Front Page. Hey - the front page, yes. But ANY page would be good, too, and a lot of the media are not covering it at all.
Breitbart, which is only today beginning to cover this, but finally they are, has a story on Politico's complete absence of this story. Go search "Kermit Gosnell" at Politico, and what do you get? ZERO hits. Not ONE story. And yet, it is the single most searched term at Politico, ahead of gun control, immigration, and North Korea. Mollie covered this, too, at Get Religion, and pointed out, "Way to serve your customers, Politico." Nice angle, Mollie. Great point.
Foxnews - Fox is as guilty as the liberal media for its lack of coverage. FOR SHAME. They have one story from back in February, and the only other story was from over a year ago. USAToday has more - but at least Fox also put out an opinion piece on the dearth of coverage. Actually, I'm not surprised at Fox. Half their stories are prurient fluff about wardrobe malfunctions and bikini photos. I am convinced if they're not taking the liberal angle as much as CNN does, it's only because they've found a niche and making it work - it's marketing, not philosophy.
A search for "Gosnell" at CNN returns back practically nothing, if it weren't for the search engine wondering if I meant "Gospel"! Uh, NO. But their front page is loaded with gun control. You know. Because of Sandy Hook.
I just learned just now that MSNBC.com redirects to NBCnews.com. Well, I can't say that I mourn the demise of the MSNBC website, because today is the first day I ever tried to access it. BUT, a search for "Gosnell" there turns up quite a few stories. On the other hand, there's nothing on the front page whatsoever, so if you didn't specifically look for it, you wouldn't find it.
Mollie got some interesting tweets back, like one saying it's not being covered because it's a local crime story. Uh-huh. Mollie herself at Get Religion and Breitbart have some interesting responses to that pathetic excuse. Wasn't Sandy Hook a local crime story? Is Todd Aikins' remarks about rape a national policy story? Idiots making idiotic excuses.
Twitchy is covering the frequency of #Gosnell - and it's trending, and the tweets are demanding an end to the media blackout. They're getting more and more critical of the silent media outlets.
The MSM are basically undermining what little credibility they have. They're falling on their swords - or scalpels, if you prefer - over this issue.
First of all, go to Get Religion - Mollie's coverage of the media blackout has the makings of a Pulitzer Prize sensation, if the scandal weren't about the media itself. Keep at it, Mollie!!! She's contacted reporters, gotten tweets back - go see, it's educational.
USAToday - gotta give them kudos when they deserve them - has a column about the loss of perspective of what belongs on the Front Page. Hey - the front page, yes. But ANY page would be good, too, and a lot of the media are not covering it at all.
The Atlantic has an opinion piece along the lines of the USAToday lament about this story deserving to be on the front page. It is also right now their most popular item. But is ANYTHING about this case on THEIR front page? NOPE. Bitcoins are more important.
The NYTimes has nothing for over a month, and before that, it was a year and a half. Search "Gosnell" there and you get two outdated stories and a bunch of obituaries for folks unfortunate enough to share the murder's last name. Oh, and paid sponsorship ads for abortion clinics.
The NYTimes has nothing for over a month, and before that, it was a year and a half. Search "Gosnell" there and you get two outdated stories and a bunch of obituaries for folks unfortunate enough to share the murder's last name. Oh, and paid sponsorship ads for abortion clinics.
Foxnews - Fox is as guilty as the liberal media for its lack of coverage. FOR SHAME. They have one story from back in February, and the only other story was from over a year ago. USAToday has more - but at least Fox also put out an opinion piece on the dearth of coverage. Actually, I'm not surprised at Fox. Half their stories are prurient fluff about wardrobe malfunctions and bikini photos. I am convinced if they're not taking the liberal angle as much as CNN does, it's only because they've found a niche and making it work - it's marketing, not philosophy.
A search for "Gosnell" at CNN returns back practically nothing, if it weren't for the search engine wondering if I meant "Gospel"! Uh, NO. But their front page is loaded with gun control. You know. Because of Sandy Hook.
I just learned just now that MSNBC.com redirects to NBCnews.com. Well, I can't say that I mourn the demise of the MSNBC website, because today is the first day I ever tried to access it. BUT, a search for "Gosnell" there turns up quite a few stories. On the other hand, there's nothing on the front page whatsoever, so if you didn't specifically look for it, you wouldn't find it.
Mollie got some interesting tweets back, like one saying it's not being covered because it's a local crime story. Uh-huh. Mollie herself at Get Religion and Breitbart have some interesting responses to that pathetic excuse. Wasn't Sandy Hook a local crime story? Is Todd Aikins' remarks about rape a national policy story? Idiots making idiotic excuses.
Twitchy is covering the frequency of #Gosnell - and it's trending, and the tweets are demanding an end to the media blackout. They're getting more and more critical of the silent media outlets.
The MSM are basically undermining what little credibility they have. They're falling on their swords - or scalpels, if you prefer - over this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)