Do not click on this link unless you want to be enraged at the stories of parents who unconscionably refuse medical treatment for their children. Dr. Harriet Hall of SBM tells the story, of, among others, the incredibly courageous Rita Swan, a former Christian Scientist who quit the church after her son Mathew died of untreated bacterial meningitis. Swan then became a heroic campaigner for the rights of children to be treated even if their parents belong to faiths that prohibit “modern” medicine. She founded CHILD (Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty), which meticulously documented cases of deaths and suffering brought on by their parents’ neglect and misplaced faith.
Let me be clear: if these deluded shitwits want to end or shorten their own lives by avoiding medicine, I’ve got no problem with that. In fact, more power to them. But they DO NOT have the right to commit manslaughter.
I’d like to call for the laws that protect these monsters to be repealed, but I’m sanguine enough to know that it will never happen.
The link herein contains graphic photos, terrifying stories of unrelieved suffering, and infuriating tales of preventable deaths. Also various members of fringe sects trying to justify their homicidal actions.
George Monbiot thinks the American media is enslaved to the hard right.
No, I’m not kidding. And neither, I suspect, is he.
Phil Carter is still plugging away, proving that when an officer is newly minted, they take his brain away; when he makes captain, he gets the brain back but they take his tongue; and when he gets RIF’ed, goes to law school and starts working for Slate, they give him the tongue back but only if he agrees to drop the common sense, and back slowly away.
Today, Phil gives us this gem:
To some extent, I think the government should have the power to detain prisoners of war.
Wow, don’t you think you’re conceding a lot there, Phil, by saying that a government that captures enemy troops on the battlefield should (to some extent) have the power to detain prisoners of war? What’s next? Conceding that a government involved in a just war should, on some occasions, probably permit its soldiers to fire on enemy soldiers? I mean, how generous do you want to be to Chimpsky McBushHitler and Hal I Burton, his vice president?
In the absence of the ability to detain people captured on the battlefield, the alternatives are
I’m one of those people who can simultaneously read two or three books at once and follow them all. I’ve decided to peek into the alternately laughable and terrifying world of idiot literature. I’ve compiled a list, from the catalogue of the Canberra public library (books are expensive enough in Australia, I’m not going to waste money on these freaks.) They will include, but will certainly not be limited to:
The Age of Consent by George Monbiot
No Logo by Naomi Klein
Dude, Where’s My Country? by Michael Moore
Not Happy, John! by Margo Kingston
Living History by Hilary Rodham Clinton
The Population Explosion by Paul Ehrlich
The New Rulers Of The World by John Pilger
Why Do People Hate America? by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies.
Orientalism by Edward Said
Living Faith by Jimmy Carter
And just to prove that leftists do not have a monoply on idiocy,
The Death Of The West by Patrick Buchanan
I’m starting off with a grotesque tome entitled The Empire of Ignorance, Hypocrisy and Ignorance: What’s Wrong With America And How We Can Fix It by one Julian Ninio, a native of France (natch). He claims to be a US citizen and a Harvard MBA, but this is belied by his writing, in which he displays the cognitive and reasoning skills of a boiled potato. The book is fulsomely dedicated to Noam Chomsky, if that tells you anything.
If anyone can figure out a way for me to make money off this, please let me know. Maybe like one of those March of Dimes walk-a-thons where people pledge money for each mile you walk? Five dollars per idiot isn’t too much to ask, I think.
Well, it seems that if you are a Christian, and you criticize homosexuality, it can land you in jail for a month.
Personally, I don’t care what you stuff up your wazoo or your goonya. It’s not my call.
But ferchrissakes, if that’s your thing, I don’t see how your sexual habits should be off-limits targets of my wit.
[Send the kids to bed here, folks. Including yourself if you are easily offended.]
Newspapers have a responsibility to provide ‘all the news that is fit to print’ and they do this to the best of their abilities. Or to the best of their internal agenda, anyway. I’m not as concerned as some people are about bias in the media in so far as news reporting is concerned (although a biased slant can affect what news stories are covered.) because in straight news reporting, the reader can pick up what the bias is, and adjust accordingly.
I know, for example, that in the British media, the BBC will cover a story in a different way to the Daily Telegraph.
However, the Op/Ed part of the paper is more problematic. While the reader can figure out what the news means in and of itself, a newspaper has a responsibility to ‘put the pieces together’ and explain the bigger picture. This is a very important part of the role of an Op/Ed section.
Given all that, I would like to think that an editor would guard his/her Op/Ed section of a newspaper rather closely, to ensure that only the ‘best and the brightest’ get their hands on some of the most valuable journalistic real estate going.
Alas, it is not as easy as that, in Australia, anyway. Two Op/Ed articles this long weekend have emerged that make it clear that it just about anyone with the editor’s ear can print whatever drivel they care to. After all the reputation of the Australian media is such that it is not like it could get any worse.
Well, just as bad. The food-nanny organization CSPI is looking to ban milk in Wisconsin.
Not all milk. Just whole milk and 2 percent. Skim milk and 1 percent are apparently OK.
Specifically, the center is ranting against the dairy industry for supporting the wording of a bill passed by the House of Representatives to reauthorize federal child nutrition programs, including the school lunch program. The bill requires schools to offer milk in a “variety of fat contents.”
What’s wrong with variety? What’s wrong with giving children choices?
The center is aghast because a variety of choices means that some of the milk offered in schools might be – dare we say it? – 2 percent or even whole milk.
Egad! What are we to do?
Ban 2 percent and whole milk from schools, of course, along with the flavored milk drinks that exceed the fat-free or 1 percent limit. At least that’s what the Center for Science in the Public Interest wants.
More information on the CSPI from the indispensable ActivistCash.