Kelinci Hutan
07 October 2013 @ 08:27 am
Obviously President Stompy-Foot was not going to let the fact that the GOP finally grew a pair stand unchallenged. So, in a fit of pique, he has decided to make the shutdown far more unpleasant than actually necessary. So far we have seen governance by temper-tantrum that would put most two-year-olds to the blush.

  • The Battle Of The Barrycades
    Location: National Mall, Washington D.C.
    Read about it here and here.

    After storming the beaches of Normandy, fighting actual Nazis, and generally being awesome, World War II veterans returned home, worked hard, kicked back in retirement, and waited fifty-nine years before the US finally built a memorial for their work on the National Mall. However, because the federal government is shut down, open air memorials (as in, it's just sitting out there on the Mall with no fences or enclosures or anything) like this one have been barricaded. So far, the vets have been undeterred (probably because after fighting actual Nazis, nothing in the world seems that scary anymore), and--aided and abetted by Republican legislators--have armed themselves to storm the Mall with wire-cutters.

  • The Closure Of The Ocean
    Location: United States coastline - all of it
    Read about it here.

    The National Park Service has actually been directed to prevent people from accessing the ocean. As in, no boats or swimmers allowed on open water. The sheer ridiculousness of this particular stunt pretty much is its own joke, so I'll make no further comments on this one.

  • The Hiding Of Mount Rushmore
    Location: Black Hills, South Dakota
    Read about it here.

    To be clear, I can understand closing down the Rushmore park. If the government is shut down, there's no park minions to man it, or anybody to pick up the trash that the rude tourists drop on the ground. So, that part makes sense. The bit where this becomes a temper-tantrum is where cones have been set up on overlooks on the roads outside the park to try and prevent anybody from even looking at the mountain.


  • The Amber Alert Website Goes Dark
    Location: the internet
    Read about it here and here.

    In a move that actually surprises me more than I thought it would, the Obama admin has closed the Amber Alert website. Unlike the previous examples, which might not have come directly from the administration (though I'd be surprised if they didn't), the Amber Alert system is purely a product of the executive branch, which brings the responsibility for this one to rest squarely in the Oval Office. And this is most certainly the most damning of all the tantrums.

    To be clear, the Amber Alert system is still operational. But the website isn't there for nothing. Quoting from a set of tweets in this article, "Now as you know, the website being down doesn't mean that the Amber Alert isn't still in place, but it does take away an important function. The Amber Alert website is connected to a lot of agencies and people are on it daily to help find missing children. With the site being down, they're ridding us a very vital source of information that could be helpful to people searching for missing kids. Perhaps there is a missing child out there right now and a person believes that they spotted them. They go to the site & it's down...", on the other hand, is still totally operational. Because FLOTUS' pet projects are more important than abducted children, apparently.

So, basically, Obama is taking steps to make the shutdown worse than it should be. Even if you blame the GOP for the shutdown itself, you can't possibly excuse this behavior.

Thanks, Obama!
Music: "The Captain America March" - Captain America by Alan Silvestri
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: pissed off
Kelinci Hutan
06 September 2013 @ 09:26 pm
Dear Every British Person Ever Writing Fanfiction,

Somewhat less irritating than the issue of "fortnight," is the matter of "disorientate." Americans do not become "disorientated," we become "disoriented." Things are "disorienting." There's no tate. I don't know why that's different, but it is. There you go.

Mood: pedantic
Location: Ivy Manor
Music: "Sons Of Odin" by Patrick Doyle
Kelinci Hutan
21 July 2013 @ 07:31 pm
So, backstory, my church burned down last Saturday. (I know, I know, I am the Master of Disaster. But seriously! It happened!)

Now, before I get into the rest of this post, let me say, that building was awesome. It was gorgeous. It had a nice color scheme. The library was full of books. The choir room made rehearsals sound so incredibly amazing that you would think our choir was three times the size that it is to hear us singing in there. Great building.

One little lightning strike, and now it's a total loss.

Now, that is deeply frustrating and sad and unfortunate. We're a close-knit church and we loved the building. And loosing the books in the library and pastor's offices was a big loss. But overall, nobody was hurt, and it's a building. It's a thing. We'll build a new one and we'll be okay. The church has good insurance and we're going to be fine. We've even got a new place to meet on Sundays until we build a new building.

Which brings me to the point of this post.

See, this morning during the pastoral prayer, our pastor said that we were "suffering." And I went, "Erm...we're not suffering that much."

See, this new place is not as nice as the one that burned down (well, it's nicer than that one now, but before the fire, there was no comparison). It's only got one bathroom. The floors are kind of uneven. We're all sitting in plastic chairs instead of pews, so there's no place to put hymnbooks and the pews were much more comfy. And nicer looking. The pastor/pianist/choir space is up on a stage instead of a dais so they feel farther away.

Gee. How awful.

This building has air conditioning. We all fit into the auditorium. We have a bathroom. We weren't sitting on the floor. There are walls. The roof doesn't leak. And it isn't made out of corrugated tin, so if it had started to rain, I still could've heard the pastor. Come to that, we have a sound system, so you can hear the pastor in the back. Compared to some of the places that our Christian brothers and sisters meet in every Sunday, as their regular buildings, this building is a palace. There are people I've met who would fall on their knees in tears to be holding services in a building as nice as this one. And this is, for us, a step back from our usual building. And a temporary step back at that. Heck, whatever we build to replace the building we lost will probably be even nicer. We have been, and remain, a congregation with remarkable material blessings.

When the building burned down, that was suffering. But right now, where we are, that isn't. That's just inconvenience. And who doesn't need a little bit of that every so often?
Music: "Be Thou My Vision" by Carlton Forrester
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: thankful
Kelinci Hutan
06 June 2013 @ 09:53 am
Dear Every British Person Ever Writing Fanfiction,

Americans do not say "fortnight." Ever. We just don't. The vast majority of us don't even know what that means let alone say it. Ever. We don't say it under any circumstances. We just don't say it.

"Two weeks." That's what we say. We say two weeks. If something happened two weeks ago, we say "two weeks ago." If something happens two weeks from now, we say "two weeks from now." If something happened over the course of the last two weeks, we say "over the last two weeks."

Americans. Never. Say. Fortnight.

Kelinci Hutan
Prerequisites: Two bosses who do not communicate decisions well with each other.

Step One: Boss one states you are going to close on three days for the Christmas holiday. The 24th through the 26th.
Step Two: Change your mind. Boss two states you will now be closed from the 24th to the 1st of the new year.
Step Three: Boss one forgets decision with boss two and now wants to reopen on the 26th, resulting being closed only two days, rather than the original three.

Make. Up. Your. MINDS! Because this is insane.
Mood: infuriated
Location: Planet Earth
Music: "It's A Marshmallow World In The Winter"
Kelinci Hutan
18 October 2012 @ 03:56 pm
YupSo, my boss is trying to get a webpage for her business (my place of work) up and running and I am the only person who is remotely computer literate who works for her. Already you know this story will end in a bad place.

Today, we were looking at the webpage we've got now, and she wanted to make some changes. But the website is run through a hosting service and she does not have the login information! So she looks at me going, "So how do we change it, then?"

We get your username and password, that's freaking how. Your username is how the hosting service tells one client from another. Your password is how they know it's actually you. If you don't have those things, they don't know you from a hole in the ground. And no, your computer will not automatically remember these things for you. Yes, there are ways to get it to do that, but since you don't even know what an address bar is, I think you should probably hold off on fiddling with your browser settings. Don't look at me like I've let you down for not stopping you from making n00b mistakes before you ever hired me! Stop being scared of your damn computer and learn how to use it.

Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: frustrated
Kelinci Hutan
19 January 2011 @ 03:43 pm
So, by now I'm sure everyone knows about that abortionist who is charged with eight murders.

Now, since I'm a pro-lifer, I knew about this guy back when the initial raid took place, and so I'm not surprised about this now. Yeah, he's pretty much a jerk. I hope he rots.

Since that's basically all there is to be said there, rather than ranting about him, I'm going to rant about this thread, which is so full of fail and frustrating ignorance that it makes me want to scream. So, portions of the article linked there will be in italics, and comments from posters will be in regular print.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, made millions of dollars over 30 years, performing as many illegal, late-term abortions as he could, prosecutors said. State regulators ignored complaints about him and failed to visit or inspect his clinic since 1993, but no charges were warranted against them, District Attorney Seth Williams said.

J: Are you fucking kidding me? You don't inspect doctors offices unless they have criminal charges against them? What the hell is wrong with you people???

Could it possibly be that whenever pro-lifers insist that abortion doctors undergo routine inspections and be required to meet normal safety regulations, the abortion apologists start raving about "TRAP laws" and "unfair discrimination" and "abortion on demand without apology" and so on and so forth?

Case in point: when Virginia tried to enact legislation requiring abortion mills in the state to meet the same requirements as other medical offices that performed surgeries (you know, like dentists and veterinary clinics), the abortion apologists flipped out. Rachel Maddow went on a long rant on her show about how ridiculous it was to hold abortionists to standards, and others said how that might shut down 17 of the 21 abortuaries there, and Tarina Keene went on about how abortion is "one of the safest procedures" so regulations and safety inspections are redundant.

Obviously, inspecting abortion offices unless they have criminal charges against them is a bad thing as per the so-called pro-choicers of the United States. Way to go.

Gosnell “induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,” Williams said.

J: Efficient. Except for how DANGEROUS THAT IS.

Are you kidding me? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!? This filth masquerading as a human being had babies in his hands that were alive, breathing, and probably screaming at the top of their lungs, and he stabbed them to death with scissors and you're going to sit there and whine about how dangerous that is? Of course it's dangerous! It's MURDER! Even an abortion apologist can not call the stabbing death of a newborn anything but! This isn't simply "dangerous," it's monsterous, and how dare you ignore that? You may ignore the three thousand odd other children who die every day in the US, since you can't see them, but you could have seen these children, and still...

J: So out of what I'm assuming is lack of options for these minority women, as well as lack of money, they have to go to this barbaric fucker.

Workers, some of whom were also charged with murder, were untrained and unlicensed, including a high-school student who performed anesthesia with potentially lethal narcotics, Williams said.

J: I'll take that as a yes.

Ah, but what you don't know is that this guy is par for the course when it comes to abortion "doctors." Who could forget John Eiland, and his off-the-books abortion for his co-worker snugglebunny; Rapin Osathanondh, who killed a girl in 2007 and was finally convicted for it on manslaughter charges last year; Romeo Ferrer, who had to quit doing abortions in Maryland after his licence was suspended last year because he killed a girl in 2006 and the suspension is his only punishment; Steven Brigham, that article, he's really just the scum of the Earth; Nicola Riley, who worked with Brigham and was suspended along with him; George Shepard, who "badly injured" one of his 18-year-old victims... Oh, and this fun little shop of horrors in Australia, where they were deliberately infecting their patients with Hep C. And I didn't have to look that hard for these names. If you want to be appalled, click on the Real Choice blog up there on the link list. Jill Stanek also keeps a list of the various so-called doctors that have been indicted, suspended, fired, jailed, or otherwise noted, and that list is...really long.

Abortionists are not nice poeple. They are not safe. They are dangerous and they hurt people, and not just the unborn ones.

Ah, but the best comes for last. The real gems here are from ZoZo and rae.

ZoZo: Fucking hell. This is why we need to fight for access to legal, safe, early abortions for women, so shit like this doesn't ever need to happen.

rae: This. So fucking much.

The thing with the feet sounds more like something from a B horror movie than real life. I predict there will be a 'based on true events' story within five years.

Oh, yes. Because abortions will be safer if only they happen sooner, right? And obviously all those horrible "anti-choicers" are at fault for making it so hard to get early abortions, right? And...wait, that doesn't make any sense. The people who care enough to defend life before anyone else can be arsed are not the ones you get mad at when you find a murderer.

Bear in mind, this is in a country where abortion is legal. Where the majority of women getting abortions used birth control and used it correctly. This is not a "back-alley butcher." And while his late-term abortions were illegal, it's worth mentioning that the abortion apologists are constantly pushing for less restrictions on late-term abortions. George Carhart has admitted to performing illegal late-term abortions, and has not been arrested for it, and has been praised by the abortion establishment! This kind of thing? That's what the abortion apologists want, whether they recognize it or not.

Yeah, those "front-alley" abortions are so gosh-darned safe. Obviously legalizing abortion was a great idea. But hey, at least we'll all have something to whine about how tacky and inconsiderate it is when those "based on true events" movies come out in a few years. Unbelievable.
Music: "Rehnuma" from Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Mood: angry
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
An alternate title for this entry would be "Why People Who Claim that God is Different in the Old Testament than He is in the New Really Get On My Nerves!"

The title I did use is an abbreviated quote of Hebrews 13: 8. We are a few Sundays into a series on the Sermon on the Mount at church, and I think it's not entirely accidental that this comes right after our series on Joshua. For anyone who hasn't read Joshua, that's the book that covers Israel's conquest of the Promised Land, which means it's not exactly fun bedtime reading. Blood, violence, and slaughter everywhere. And I'm saying that that God, who authorized all that violence is the same God as Jesus is?!?

Yeah, I am.

First off, if you're reading the Bible honestly, you can't come to any other conclusion. Matthew 23: 23, for example, says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law..." Matthew 5: 17, 18 are the obvious picks. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Bear in mind, in both cases, these are red letter verses. Jesus himself is saying this. Jesus came and died for us. Hooray! That's worth getting very excited over. But, you don't get to just ignore the Old Testament or claim it "doesn't count" or that "God is different now." It's there, it does, and He isn't.

Second, God in the Old Testament is just as loving as He is in the New. Yes, even after reading about Jericho. Going back to Matthew 23: 23, the rest of the verse goes, "weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to ghave done, without neglecting the others." Jesus thinks the Old Testament law is justice, mercy, and faithfulness. The Parable of the Good Samaritan is famous, but less people know what prompted it. Luke 10: 25-28. "And behold, a lawyer stood up and put him to the test, saying, 'Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' He said to him, 'What is written in the Law? How do you read it?' And he answered, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.' And he said to him, 'You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.'" Bear in mind, these guys are talking while Jesus is still performing His active ministry. They can only be talking about the Old Testament, as there is no New Testament at that point in time! The consensus of both parties on how to sum up the Old Testament is that God tells us to love people. Even people in the Old Testament felt God was loving then. Psalm 36: 7, 8. "How precious is your steadfast love, O God! The children of mankind take refuge in the shadow of your wings. They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights. For with you is the fountain of life; in your light do we see light." Psalm 145: 8, 9. "The Lord is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love. The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made." Old Testament people who didn't even know when the Messiah was coming, and had no idea what the New Testament would possibly look like thought God was loving! These are not the things that people write when they're crushed under the heel of an oppressive deity.

Third, God in the New Testament is just as wrathful as He is in the Old. Yeah, even after reading about Jesus. Romans 1: 18. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Even Jesus curses people. Matthew 18: 5, 6. "Whoever recieves one such child in my name recieves me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Or again in Matthew 23: 32-36. "Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."

You can not pick bits of the Bible and say, "I only want these bits, since I don't like those." God is the same god in these bits you like as He is in those you don't. You must either take all of it, or none, but you can not pick and choose. He's the same God from beginning to end, and the whole Bible is saying this from beginning to end. The God who loves is the God who judges. I am so tired of listening to people try and ignore portions of His nature. If you reject some, you reject all. If you accept some, you accept all.
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
Last night, I was having a conversation with my family that--somehow--meandered over to asking permission from a girl's father to date her. The title quote was what my mother said to me on the subject.

My response to this is a flat no. More than that, as I said to Mom at the time, if any guy I'm interested ever does ask my parents permission to date me, I don't care if they say yes or no. I'm done with him forever at that second. It is a categorical deal-breaker.

Mom did not look very satisfied with this response, but since obviously I don't care whether my parents give permission on this issue, her disapproval isn't going to change my mind any. However, it's irritated me enough that I'm going to lay out my reasons against this particular piece of cultural idiocy for anyone who cares to read it.

First off, this practice, as it functions in our culture, is a blatant double-standard. I'm not expected to ask the parents of any men I'm interested their permission to date him, but he's expected to ask my parents' permission to date me? Why? How does that make any sense? This might, arguably, make a little sense if I were still a teenager, but there I'd be arguing that it ought to go both ways. To an adult woman, this is an excuse to treat her like a child, but the same cannot be said of the adult man in this situation. Double-standard, double-standard, double-standard.

Next, this carries within it an implicit disregard for a woman's intelligence. Obviously men can be trusted to make reasoned, intelligent decisions about the people they wish to date. Women, on the other hand, clearly can't be, therefore it must be up to their parents--specifically their fathers--to point them in the right direction and only grant access to approved males.

On top of that, this confers an authority to both a woman's parents and to her suitors that I don't think they should have. Honestly, I don't even see that there's Biblical support for this (I'm not going to go into this, though, unless someone asks). Simply put, no one gets to decide who any woman is or is not right for except for that woman.

Lastly, it absolves women of responsibility for making one of the biggest decisions in their lives. If things go well, then it's a good thing her parents gave this guy permission, isn't it? And if they go wrong, well, it's not entirely her fault; he did have permission after all. Now, this one might seem like a minor reason when stacked up against the first three, but I feel it's at least as important as the previous ones I mentioned being as it reinforces all of them. Clearly women can not be trusted to make these decisions, so their families have to make it for them. This decision is such a big deal that women shouldn't carry this responsibility! They can't! It's just so big! You can't do it all by yourself! You would fail without our help!

Gee, I've heard that line before used by people most of the "Ask Permission" proponents would be ashamed of agreeing with. And it's completely wrong then, too.

So, in sum, screw that. I'm not jumping on this bandwagon.
Mood: irritated
Location: Ivy Manor
Music: "Harry Sees Dragons" from Goblet of Fire
Kelinci Hutan
23 February 2010 @ 01:42 pm
I'm not going to post any further in this thread, but ZoZo, who I usually like fine, has managed to try and make the argument that "pro-choice" is also "pro-life" and "pro-life" is really "anti-choice."

As usual, it's just as stupid as always, but rather than posting further there, since that drama will blow over fairly quickly if I don't, I'll just vent my spleen in my LJ. Being as that's what it's for and all.

And no, I have no intentions of being nice here. Skip this entry if that will bother you. )

What this really boils down to? "It's okay when I do it, but not when you do." It's entitlement. Pro-choicers are mad that the pro-life movement has the audacity to continue to exist after they've repeatedly told us not to. Now--far too late, by the way--they're realizing that "pro-life" has a much better ring to it and is more rhetorically powerful, so they are desperately trying to redefine the movement. They're going to fail for two reasons. 1. Pro-lifers are in the majority now. 2. This focus on "choice" leaves the terribly serious charge of, "Dude, you're killing human beings." to stand unanswered.

This is not a road the pro-choice movement wants to go down. The obvious rhetorical retaliatiation to "anti-choice" is "anti-life," and it's cropping up more and more commonly as "anti-choice" becomes more firmly established. If they lost the last choice/life rhetoric fight, they're really going to loose this one, and loose it hard.
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
30 January 2010 @ 01:07 pm
CBS is airing a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl. I've been sitting on this, hoping I'd get to see the wank-splosion that was sure to happen on WGW after, but now I'm sadly denied this source of amusment.

Instead, I think I'll just make fun of any particularly lame comments here.

Wonder if they'd have let an ad run featuring a grieving husband talking about how his wife died from pregnancy complications.

Magic eight ball says no.
First off, unrelated situation is unrelated. I mean, it's about choice, right? So if this woman chose to go ahead with her pregnancy and died as a result, then that situation, while tragic, has nothing to do with the abortion debate. This is why I don't call the movement "pro-choice" unless I'm speaking to members. For a lot of this movement, there's only one choice, they're pro. If it were different, no one would care much that this ad is running. It's her choice, right? A few people have reacted that way but with most...not so much. All this uproar would not be if it were really about choice.

Second, how does that phrase go? "Never an easy choice, sometimes the right choice, always the woman's choice?" Yeah, that first bit is the one to notice here. Pro-lifers have a bottomless well of both jubilant stories of choosing life and celebrating it and sad ones of abortions that ruined lives. Abortion stories are usually just sad. The Super Bowl should be upbeat. Abortions are...not upbeat.

More to follow...probably.
Mood: amused
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
23 January 2010 @ 03:59 pm
Yesterday, some people know, was the 38th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision. The very next year, 1974, the first annual March for Life was held in Washington DC, protesting legal abortion in our country. Since then, the pro-life movement has grown and is still growing. Yesterday was the 37th consecutive March for Life. Over twenty members of Congress spoke at the rally before the march, representing both the House and the Senate. Alvida King, Martin L. King's niece, was in attendance. Guess how much media coverage this march recieved?

Virtually none. Seriously, did you know about it? I thought not.

Okay, so what? Lots of Congress critters and a King showed up. Who cares? Alright, try this on for size: there were over two hundred thousand demonstrators. 200,000. Possibly as many as three hundred thousand. People came from at least all of the "lower 48," although I suspect Hawaii and Alaska were also represented. People came from other countries like Spain and France and Ireland. Name me any other movement in the history of the US that stages demonstrations like this dependably, every single year and doesn't have their big annual event get at least a solid mention in most of the major news outlets? Seriously. Name me one. Anything.

Yeah, I've got nothing, either.

So, let's look at some of the folks that did "cover" it. Here is NPR's article. "Roe v. Wade Anniversary Brings Anti, Pro Marchers To DC." Well, okay, technically accurate as there apparently were pro-abortion demonstrators there. This article estimates that there were "about 60 abortion rights demonstrators." Sixty? Really? Sixty pro-abortion demonstrators? To 200K pro-life ones? Even the abbreviated form of 200K is bigger than 60. They probably all felt like this picture from the NPR article:

That Scripps article describes the pro-life crowd as "angry," too. I have to say, I watched that rally on EWTN, (the only network reliably covering it) and they weren't "angry." The Orthodox Rabbi that spoke was a regular firebrand, I'll grant. He might have been a little bit angry. Certainly the crowd was energized and excited. But I suppose any energy seems like anger to people who want those who have it to be bad guys.

CNN gave a bit of a mention, as well. Near the bottom is this hilarious line. "'A fetus is not a life, sorry,' NOW President Terry O'Neill told CNN." Sorry, science! Sorry, biology! Sorry, common sense and intelligent philosophy! You are all wrong, because I say so! Ha, ha, ha! Yeah, it doesn't work like that.

To quote Steven D. Greydanus at the National Catholic Register:
This is sheer mendacity—not even just biased journalism, it’s outright malicious deception.

This was not a meeting or juxtaposition of two opposed demonstrations, however equal or unequal. It was a massive pro-life demonstration with a few counter-demonstrators. We were the event; they were a tiny footnote. That is simply a fact that the piece is nakedly attempting to bury.

bolding his

Why am I not surprised. Heaven forbid people actually discover how wide-spread and fired-up this movement actually is! Why then all those folks with pro-life leanings might actually figure out they're not alone!

So, if you're curious what it really looked like, Jill Stanek posted some of her pictures. The Washington Times has a good photo gallery, too. On YouTube, a search for "March for Life" and "2010" returned this.

Way to miss the story, media folks. When Roe comes crashing down and most of the country throws parties, you'll probably miss that one, too. I won't, though. I'll be with these guys, celebrating.

Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: annoyed
Kelinci Hutan
A while back, I wrote about how a bunch of people on WGW were getting all up in arms about the census worker who was killed, and how it was--magically, I guess--all the fault of the Republicans.

Except now, his death has been ruled a suicide.

But that's Michelle Bachmann's fault, too, right? Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachmann, all those evil Republicans guilted this man into taking out huge life-insurance policies on himself and then faking his own homicide, didn't they? Because they hate census workers!

I am sorry this man is dead, but I just love when the blame-gaming people come up looking this stupid. This is me, pointing and laughing.
Location: Ivy Manor
Kelinci Hutan
12 November 2009 @ 08:48 pm
I've been obssively reading the news lately, and I found this article that says that abortion rights or health care was a "false choice" that Congress was being forced to make.

To grab a couple quotes that caught my eye.

...With the Stupak-Pitts amendment hanging from it like an albatross, a bill was passed that would cover millions of uninsured Americans but also strip millions of American women of reproductive health coverage. To the uncompromising went the victory.

Is this how it goes these days?


It's now abortion-rights supporters being told they must make further concessions or lose health care reform altogether. And, as Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette said, "a lot of the people are angry. They feel like the liberals and progressives always cave in because they want the bigger goal. We have to draw the line somewhere."

Where exactly do you draw a line when the opposition keeps moving it? How do you compromise with those who are uncompromising? These questions are too common in our polarized climate, but the stakes are even higher in this debate.

This is the kind of thinking I see in a lot of pro-choice writing. Why don't pro-lifers compromise? Why won't they settle for what they have now? Why doesn't this issue go away?

First off, when the hell did compromising your principles become a virtue we are seeking to attain? "To the uncompromising went the victory. Is that how it goes these days?" I sure as hell hope so, you moron! Thank goodness that we're finally seeing pro-life people have enough clout to get some legislating done on it. Not compromising is a good thing. Geesh. Compromise is what you do when you can't get what you think would be better so you make do with what's available. It's not the ideal, it's something less. Good grief.

Next, and this is something I'm more and more realizing as I interact with pro-choicers, I don't think a lot of pro-choice people really understand the pro-life position as well as they think. Because if they did, there would not be much surprise that the pro-life movement isn't going away. There'd be even less surprise that it gets stronger in the face of every defeat, regroups and tries again. And no one would ever be shocked that it's uncompromising because this isn't the kind of issue you compromise on.

"How do you compromise with those who are uncompromising?" The answer is, you don't. You either beat them or not. If Ms. Goodman would think about it, I bet she'd understand why, too. Consider that every unborn fetus who is aborted is a person. No, don't shy away from it or roll your eyes 'cause you've heard it before. Really think about it. Wrap your head around that concept. Let it sink in. People. Real people. Real, honest-to-goodness, they-have-a-life-and-a-voice-and-a-place-in-our-world people. Some of them would be your best friend, your lover, your teacher, your student, your enemy, your mentor, your criminal, your charity, your victim, your acquaintance, and your stranger. Real people. Real, empty spaces that should be filled by them. Real lives that are really lost. Those are the people--not the fetuses or the "groups of cells," but people--that pro-lifers see in all those dead babies. All that lost life. Real life and it's really gone. Take a deep breath and ask yourself a question. If you saw people like that dying all around you, would you ever, ever give up? Would you stop or rest ever until they were protected?

It's not good enough to take what we have. There are people dying and they need to be saved. Abortion is not health care. It's a business of death, and it needs to be stopped.
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: okay
Kelinci Hutan
06 November 2009 @ 05:57 pm
Okay, so this post will hopefully be shorter than the last one, but I am adding a second to the "pro-abortion arguments that I am actively trying to eradicate."

The first, which I may have written on before, runs something like this. "Many of the children who are aborted will live difficult, harsh lives. They'll be impoverished or hungry or disabled or ill. They will be born to families with too many children already or in places where medical care is poor. It is much kinder and better to abort such children before they have a chance to experience this suffering."


Now that I've gotten that out of my system, to the argument. It doesn't really work. First off, it runs on the assumption that the unborn are people with lives ahead of them, and that those lives are valuable, at least in some sense. This, already, undermines any statement about the permissability of killing such persons being as they are alive and are human.

However, if that weren't bad enough, the rest of the argument operates on some incredibly unbalanced logic. For example, let's say I met a homeless man. He is hungry, he is not dressed warmly during winter, he has no shoes, and doesn't have so much as one solitary cent to his name. However, by all appearances, he is relatively young, and I estimate will live at least another twenty years enduring exactly the sufferings that he is enduring now, with no likely relief or end in sight. Seeing this, I say to this man, "You are unfortunate and have been mistreated by life, and the universe in general. I will, therefore, kill you and save you from all possible future suffering!" I pull a gun from my coat and shoot him dead. Would anyone say I had done this man a favor? No, of course not. Instead, I have added injury to insult by murdering someone who had already been dealt just about every other possible harm in his life. If you assume life is valuable enough that the suffering of a living person should be avoided, then killing that person to prevent their suffering is...dumb, to be honest.

This is a bad argument.

So, the second argument comes in a lot of different forms, gets stated a lot of different ways, but each of them ultimately come down to this one statement. "Access to abortion on demand is absolutely essential to women's equality, therefore, as feminists, we must support abortion on demand."

Right, so leaving out the fact that sex-selective abortions are doing women no favors at all, not just in the US, but all around the globe1, this argument rests on the assumption that women are biologically less than men because we can get pregnant. That our capacity to be pregnant is limiting and is a biological hindrance to women's equality. Thus, by extension, pregnancy is disempowering to women and holds us back from achieving our goals. And pregnant women are specifically less than men.

This is a dead false, poisonous lie. It is the opposite of feminism, and I reject it entirely.

So, don't use the first argument, because it's logically unsound. Don't use the second argument, because it's insulting.

  1. So, this is Wikipedia's take on the subject. As if it doesn't happen in the US. Apparently being female is a "genetic disorder." But, hey, abortion on demand for whatever reason, right? Apparently the fact that we're killing off our girls in numbers unprecedented throughout all of history is the road to female empowerment. Or something.
Location: Ivy Manor
Mood: angry
Kelinci Hutan
This evening, it being Spring Break, and me not having left Auburn yet, I ended up watching the pilot episode for the new NBC show "Kings." It was...well, read on.

Spoilers ahead! )
Mood: weird