trinityvixen: (cancer)
The whole fight over contraception has exposed a lot of ugly bullshit, which is actually great. Because sunlight is a great disinfectant, and too long have the same resentments and misogynist undertones been circling without full exposure. It's hard to take a lot of the time, especially when legislatures controlled by a) men and b) Republicans get to change laws that no one asked or wanted them to change. But I have to remember that this sort of thing exposes them for the ignorant assholes they are.

To whit: Responsible women shouldn't be having sex. No really, that's what some asshole in North Carolina said to justify turning down funds for family planning. Because sluts, you know:

Chairman Ted Davis said he thought it was a sad day when "taxpayers are asked to pay money for contraceptives" for women having sex without planning responsibly.

Call me a sex-crazed feminazi (thank you!), but I thought taking contraceptives was planning for responsibly for women having sex. There's a better quote where someone else says something to the effect of lamenting all the sex these women are having (presumably not within ten feet of him, seeing as he's a lady-boner-killer), but the one I've highlighted above was the most hilarious to me.

Someone on Bill Maher's show suggested that women do exactly what these men want--women should just stop having sex with them, Lysistrata-style until they back the fuck off. I know it would hurt some women not to be able to get their itches scratched (except the lesbians and bi-ladies; they can go to town). I think, therefore, we should mandate taxpayer-funded vibrators for all women until such time as we stop fighting the battles of yesteryear for women's rights.
trinityvixen: (cancer)
If you don't want to deal with all aspects of your job, quit.

I get it. You were enjoying your little fiefdom in the clerk's office not having to deal with TEH GAYZ, and New York State up and changed the laws on you. Sucks. But them's the breaks in civil service life. So, either get out of civil service life or adapt. While this isn't as bad as, say, pharmacists independently deciding which drugs are and aren't acceptable to hand out to certain patients, it is still pretty goddamned immoral. Your "freedom of religion" rights are not being impinged upon when you're being asked to do your goddamned job.
trinityvixen: (Default)
Tolls to go up for travel across the Hudson.

I am all for making driving a little more expensive to convert drivers into mass-transiters, but given the sorry state of mass transit--and the fact that mass transit would become more expensive, too--this is a shit plan. I don't know what to think about this but that milking commuters has never been shown to make for happy commuters or even to support the transit authorities. I mean, we raised the cost of the Metrocard and the MTA was still crying poverty.

The only thing, far as I know, to effectively fund and fund improvements to our public transit systems are public funds. If we could get past this "no new taxes ever!" hew and cry, we might actually be able to fund collectively--and completely--what punitive taxes on individual commuters won't ever be able to.
trinityvixen: (cancer)
Trigger Warning. )

I'm so appalled. Just when you thought anti-choicers couldn't sink any lower. I also vow never to let the term "pro-life" pass anyone's lips in front of me without correcting them. Because if this doesn't prove--as the restrictions and bullshit hoops have before it--that anti-choicers haven't got one iota of concern for life, nothing will. And I will bring it up. Constantly. To remind anti-choicers. You stand on the side of these people.
trinityvixen: (cancer)
(This primer brought to you courtesy of this article at The New York Times. h/t [livejournal.com profile] moonlightalice)

Lesson 1: If you find yourself making the brutal murder of someone into a story about how you, the not-at-all-persecuted, let-alone-dead person are finding it really hard to be called mean names, congratulations, you're on the side of evil.

Example: “Naturally, I don’t want anyone killed but I don’t feel I had anything to do with that,” said Mr. Schmierer, who added that in Uganda he had focused on parenting skills. He also said that he had been a target of threats himself, recently receiving more than 600 hate mails related to his visit. “I spoke to help people,” he said, “and I’m getting bludgeoned from one end to the other.”

Note: Ms. Schmierer uses the word "bludgeoned" in regards to his own imaginary persecution when, in fact, such a term is better used to describe what was done to an innocent man who was so unfortunate as to live in a country full of murderous zealots. This earns him extra cockwhacker points. Sarah Palin ain't got nothing on this guy's sense of victimhood.

Lesson 2: If this guy is on your side, you are on the side of evil:

Uganda’s minister of ethics and integrity, James Nsaba Buturo, a devout Christian, has said “Homosexuals can forget about human rights.”

Lesson 3: If you seriously intend to argue against Lesson 2, you are on the side of evil.

Any questions?
trinityvixen: (cock)
I'm collecting a lot of links for posts.

1) Proof positive that outlawing a thing doesn't make it go away. (ETA: TRIGGER WARNING) For fuck's sake, abortion isn't illegal now, and this is what's happening because it's become so goddamned shameful and fucking difficult to obtain for anyone who isn't rich. You tell me what's more offensive to your God, anti-choicers: a woman scraping some insensate cells out of her uterus or a man forcibly delivering viable** fetuses and stabbing them with scissors? Pro-life my goddamned ass.

2) This isn't a totally accurate list, which makes it all the more aggravating when it gets things right. I agree with all the points about emotional attachment to a franchise. Spider-Man isn't James Bond. Hell, he's not Batman. We've had pretty much the one guy. (Okay, Tobey Maguire was the guy and that was an up-and-down relationship, but he's still the guy.) The story still resonates where the films were any good. And the best villains were already used, including, despite how shittily he was used, Venom.

However, the cast wasn't perfect, and the acting was occasionally too embarrassed/embarrassing for its own good. (Dunnnssssssssst!) Raimi did something amazing with Spider-Man, and I'll fight anyone who'll take that credit from him. He overcame hurdles that had banished Spider-Man to development hell for some 20 years. The problem was that Spider-Man, for all the general awareness of him in pop culture, was still kind of an unknown. He's not Superman and he's not Batman, the binary twins of screen superheroism. Once Raimi made Spider-Man, the dam burst and we were able to accept other people's visions of superheroes. (Or, in the case of The Hulk, reject them.) There's no one guy who can do Spider-Man, just one guy who did it well (until the studio meddled and sabotaged him). There's room for more there.

Just, you know, not right now. Sony's not doing this for revenge, by the way. This is purely to keep the rights and make the most of them. Yes, okay, fine, maybe they're spiting Marvel Studios a little. But this is 90% financial interest.

3) Never trust a movie that films today and will be showing tomorrow. If I'd followed that rule for Bachelor Party in the Bungalow of the Damned, I might have that hour back to waste on this movie. Alas, I do not. (No, really, they're filming it now to show in two months. You stay classy, SyFy.)

4) Wow, I didn't know John Cusack had been drinking that much. Kidding! He's still not hang-dog looking enough to play Edgar Allen Poe without a lot of makeup, but I'm sure he'll manage. Hey, today was Poe's birthday and his biggest secret fan didn't show up. Sadness :(
trinityvixen: (face!)
Without explicitly stating from whence my aggravation of these issues comes, I'd like to simply, accurately educate the world. Those of you on my f-list pretty much know this already, but humor me. It won't take long. I just have two common misconceptions that I would like to correct. Right. Now.

1) Do you think women are people, with all the inherent complexities, strengths, and failings thereof? CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE A FEMINIST.
Contrary to what you may have heard, women, you don't have to stop shaving any part of your body--legs, "down there," armpits, mustache--nor burn bras, nor hate pornography, nor change the spelling of words to either "feminize" them--WO-mandatory, for example--or "neuter" them--"hyr," "womyn," "semyn"--in order to be a feminist. You just have to think women are people. Men, you do not have to encourage your female friends and significant others to do any of those things nor is feeling emasculated a necessary prerequisite of being a feminist. You can be a feminist by thinking women are people! It's just that simple!

2) You know who likes to molest little boys and girls? PEDOPHILES.
Being sexually attracted to people under the age of 10 is a disease, currently an incurable one. It's a psychological pathology. Some times, that pathology manifests in way that might appear "gay" to you, and not in that Johnny Weir, "That's gay," locker-room-towel-fight gay way. We're talking male-on-under-age-male gay. So I understand it is confusing when I say it's not gay, it's PEDOPHILIA. It is not gay because it's not about having sex with someone who has the same genitals as you. It's about abusing someone who has the same genitals (or will, when they, you know, fully mature) as you. People who are sexually attracted to under age boys or girls are sick, sick people. They're not gay. Even if gayness is sickness to you (and if it is, I'm now 99% sure you're a self-hater), gay is a different sickness, a different pathology entirely from the one that makes you want to abuse kids. Please correct your thinking.
trinityvixen: (fucky)
Christopher Hitchens is a prick. Even when I agree with him, I find myself hating just about everything about the way he makes his arguments. This article, for example, makes the case that the idea that international unity and fellowship is engendered by sporting events is complete horseshit. I'm as cynical as the next person who dislikes sports, but the way he states his case makes anyone who raises an eyebrow at the inordinate, unjustified waste of money on sports look like a total bastard. Question the orthodoxy, the common wisdom that money spent on sports = more money for cities/countries (in tourism and merchandise), and you're with Christopher Hitchens, claiming that the World Cup causes terrorism.

Well, I'm not with him on that. Very. Annoying. Assumptions. Debunked. )

So he's a jerk and one who wounds his fellows as much as his enemies. He and Stephen Fry took up the part of "The Catholic Church is Not a Force for Good" part of a debate, and Hitchens used Stephen Fry's sexual orientation as a weapon. I'm glad Stephen Fry is out and open and unapologetic, but that's an issue for him to use in debate, not the blowhard next to him. It felt uncomfortably like he was just returning to the meme "Stephen Fry's a queer! And you hate him for this thing you find disgusting!" And it came across as salacious and hurtful more than supportive.

Anyway, this long rambling introduction to Hitchens is just a prelude to this article he wrote about Pope Benedict XVI's culpability in the ongoing, ever-renewing, ever-being-revealed sexual abuse scandals. It's a tough but fair indictment of Benedict, not because he's a rapist, but because he protects them, shelters them within the church, and makes the only crime worthy of excommunication that of telling any non-church people about the abuses of the church. I admire the article most for his unapologetic description of abuse and how little he likes a word that covers up assault and rape--the word "abuse" being used to clean up the worst offenses is, indeed, a crime in and of itself.

My favorite turn of phrase, that made me find this article, which is not groundbreaking, news-worthiness-wise, is the following:

The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime. Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil—a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel. What is needed is not medieval incantation but the application of justice—and speedily at that.

It's concise, beautifully stated in hard, uncompromising, literarily vengeful words. "Foulest inequity." Has there ever been a better phrase to describe this sex scandal, now decades in the offing? (And, their God alone knows, still being added to daily?)

I restate my opener here: Christopher Hitchens is a prick. But he can be right, so right.

h/t Savage Blog
trinityvixen: (cancer)
It's now homicide if you get an illegal abortion in Utah (a state where pretty much any abortion is illegal). Oh, wait, except this law also applies to miscarriages. So all your potential fetuses had better be veeeeeery well looked after, women. Because even if you wanted that baby more than life itself, even if you're screaming and crying and seeing a shrink for PTSD following your miscarriage, if someone decides that your miscarriage looks at all out of the ordinary, you could be investigated for murder.

As the title of this post points out, this is terrible law. This is on par with that attempt to classify a zygote as a human being. It's something you cannot legislate at least 90% of the time. Miscarriages tend to occur mostly within the first trimester. It is possible that a woman may not even know she was pregnant or that she miscarried. Are all women, therefore, supposed to submit their used pads and tampons as proof of innocence? If a woman miscarries before viability, is it a lesser/greater charge? If a baby dies in utero, is she then subject to laws about handling a corpse?

Bottom line: you cannot declare fetuses to be persons. It is far too problematic. This is terrible law. On the one hand, it's nice to see the people hiding behind OMG BEBBIES! bullshit go the whole hog and finally start trying to convict women they've always believed were murderers. I mean, courage of your convictions and all that, well done. On the other: you're trying to convict women who have lost their fetuses for murder. That is going to go down really well, let me tell you. The fact that such a radical step would be made just proves that anti-choicers hate women. Just in case y'all hadn't gotten the message by the slut-shaming and presumption of women's stupidity that runs rampant through anti-choice messages.

What a crock of shit.
trinityvixen: (gay)
A wonderful conversation about this maddening, obfuscating article about DADT

[livejournal.com profile] moonlightalice: oh god the NYT ran a pro-DADT op-ed
me: they waaaaa?
(goes to read linked article)
me: I love how he's like "But we kicked out fatties and no one complained!" Well, yes, because you're allowed to fire people who can't do the job. Point is that gay people CAN. That gayness doesn't automatically disqualify you. This is some seriously deluded BS.
[livejournal.com profile] moonlightalice: You haven't gotten to the end. "Individual performance is bullshit, it's about GROUPS." Yeah, because all those integrated units in every other country? They lose wars like crazy
[livejournal.com profile] moonlightalice: oh my GOD, he believes the military is "warrior culture"
me: I love how he's like "call me crazy for being an IDEALIST, but I like my military the way it is." Way to cloak yourself in purtiy, asshat
[livejournal.com profile] moonlightalice: And warrior culture must be PROTECTED
me: "Waaaaah, stop making me play with faaaaags. Blowing shit up and playing with phallic weapons isn't gay SHUT UP"
[livejournal.com profile] moonlightalice: lol
me: I mean, has this guy been far removed from "unit cohesion" or what? Does he not remember how fucking many dudes in the army are constantly waving their cocks around?
[livejournal.com profile] moonlightalice: haha "fucking many dudes in the army." I bet that's what he's scared of.
me: The army is already pretty gay, is what I'm saying.
me: These are the guys most insecure about their cocks. Having a gay guy there to go "Yep, that's a good cock" would probably IMPROVE things


I could probably point out more about how disingenuous all his arguments are, and how they all break down into a temper tantrum about how he doesn't want no gays in this man's army, but really, the logical contortion to make an excuse for why sexual orientation fundamentally alters your ability to kill shit is, well, tortured enough that I needn't bother going on about it, really.
trinityvixen: (Stupid People)
Time for a good old-fashioned gripe. Here's what's annoying me this week!

1. People who pronounce things wrong.
I don't mean people who don't speak English well or have accents. They are lovely and allowed to speak with accents all their life for all I care, especially if they are British. (Or Australian. Or Kiwi. Or even South African, though I will probably confuse that with one of the others--or all of the others at some point.) I mean people who were born and raised in America and obviously speak fluent English who insist on pronouncing words that they clearly have only ever read on paper in a way that is stupid and obviously wrong, and worse, no one corrects them.

FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT )

2. People who are anorexic presuming to lecture other people about their eating habits. Yes, this article has to do with the Kevin Smith kerfuffle, which should be discussed in terms of customer service and has instead devolved into "Fatties deserve it." But it's a good read. Because even if you want to make this about someone being fat, end of story, you really, really shouldn't let anyone that obsessed with food tell you what's right and what's not when it comes to a) eating, b) obesity, c) anything else. Obsessed people make very poor philosophers.

3. The fact that I'm probably going to have to buy this expansion.
I hate this strategy. )
trinityvixen: (no sense)
So this woman is out to save marriage from divorce in Oklahoma. This may be an unpopular thing to say, but I applaud her for at least having the courage of her convictions and going full-on with the crazy and not being a hypocrite. See, she really does think gays are a threat to marriage. And she sat a good long time and thought, "Gee, you know what else is a threat to marriage?"

Et voila, she has something she wants done about divorce. Not that she intends to be any less batshit, rights-denying, human-hating about this than she is about gay marriage. This woman wants you married, goddamnit, and you will stay that way, so help her GOD...

Her rules would basically make it impossible for all but childless couples and those who get married at Vegas chapels on drunken binges (are you listening, Britney Spears?) to get divorced. You couldn't divorce for "incompatibility" if you'd been married for ten years or more (because every thing that might happen to you to change your personality has only a ten-year window in which to happen which opens right after you get married and nothing good/bad/major will ever happen to you or your spouse after that window is closed). You also can't divorce for "incompatibility" if you have minor children, which means that unless you were living in sin with the partner with whom you had children until those children were 6-7-8 years of age, HA HA NO DIVORCE FOR YOU. I suppose that's one way to keep an eye on those people of ill repute who would dare to birth bastards in this day and age. (That's probably her next suggestion: finding a way to declare certain kinds of children legally illegitimate in a country with no royalty.)

You also can't object to a divorce on "incompatibility" grounds if the other person objects. Would love to be in that Divorce Court. ("Your Honor, we're clearly incompatible! He wants a divorce and I don't! Er, wait...") It's the kind of logical conundrum that would kill off our Robot Overlords.

The non-funny side to this is that a person who is not outright abusive or unfaithful could trap you in a marriage basically forever by refusing to divorce you. Two things about that: 1) No one should ever have that power over you again, which is why divorce exists at all. 2) If this whole thing were to pass, that person could hold you until such time as you hit the big Tin/Aluminium Anniversary and became ineligible. (Ooh, did this Rep. know that the traditional presents for that anniversary are so...tarnishable?) ::shudders at the thought::

No fault divorce! The three best words in the English language!
trinityvixen: (epic fail)
It looks like I was right. I blogged about this before, but this really slam dunks the case I was trying to make in a much, much shorter format.

I'd also like to point out the disproportionate loss of women of color from that map. Every season, you lose at least one female character, usually the non-white female character. They tried to compensate, it seems, by putting in two new female characters in, but one of them always leaves and the others are now all white.

The issue of women on this show is a sore one for me. Every season has, in a list of 11-13 central characters, only 4 female characters AT MOST. Of those four, only two have been around since season one, if you fudge the matter and count Ali Larter as being continuous even though her characters have not been. That's a serious imbalance before you begin to consider how marginalized the women in this list are. The three remaining in the fourth season play the very definite roles of maiden, mother, crone, too. Which helps immensely, let me tell you.

Someone remind me why I watch this again?
trinityvixen: (cancer)
Perhaps you've heard of James Dobson? He's a moral crusader. You know the type--the pseudo-friendly evangelist type that just wants to protect people from their worst impulses, like women working, that sort of thing. He's the sort of curmudgeonly old dude you can't believe is able to survive the daily affront to his delicate sensibilities that is a non-theocratic America.

I happen to reading about a blog post about a horrid abuse of power, wherein a mother asked the police to taser her 10 year old and they did, all because the girl didn't want to shower (!?). The post's author linked this sort of abuse to the kind that is generally encouraged by people like James Dobson. Whether or not you agree with the writer's premise that people who listen to Dobson and enthusiastically spank (if not outright whip) their kids are abusing them, regardless of whether you think spanking is a slippery slope towards having your kids tasered, I think we can all agree that James Dobson is a monster.

Why? Because he wrote this book, with this excerpt in it about how he BEAT HIS TINY DACHSHUND:
Cut for disturbing content--animal abuse )

This is a grown man who took a belt to a dog the size of a loaf of bread because he felt that was the best way to discipline his dog. I wonder: if he'd had a pit bull or some equally tempered dog, would have been so "brave" as to try and take a strap to it?

Long story short: if you want to pretend that you're qualified for telling other people what behaviors are right or wrong, it is generally not a good idea to write--proudly, no less--about beating up your dog. You. Fucker.
trinityvixen: (no sense)
One of the things that bothers me most in reportage about political bloggers and commentators is the tendency to forget that just as there is a difference in extremism, there is also a difference in type when people have opinions and suggest courses of action. The extremism equilibrium issue is a bad one, but it is also one that is easy to point out and shut down. You can easily see the difference, with some thought, between people who aren't sure that the health care reform being debated right now is what's best and people who think that health care reform is the Holocaust by another name. That is a difference in extremes of the same opinion.

The differences in kind are quite different and no one will give acknowledgment the time of day because it takes more than hyperbole to see. However, when you compare moderate activists against a hyperbolic, probably insane television anchor, it becomes much, much easier to see what a difference in kind actually is.

A gay female blogger suggests that her fellow LGBT readers should not donate to the DNC because, on the whole, the DNC is doing nothing to advance their agenda. This is better than the RNC, who would do less than nothing, but not acceptable. You donate money, you expect your congressperson/senator/president to pay attention. That's how the system works. She is working within the system to send a message.

Glenn Beck goes on TV and literally threatens his watchers with death, death, loss of liberty, death, death, fascism, and death. His network sponsors a rally against the government, and it inflates coverage of said rally. People at this rally reflect the paranoid mindset of Beck himself, mirroring his suggestions that the government is being corrupted from within and might require the blood of patriots to free once more. A man showed up the to the 9/12 rally with a "We came unarmed. [This time.]" poster. The threat isn't even subliminal. Beck is encouraging a section of the populace, his popularity rides on that segment that wants to overthrow the system.

This, my friends, is what I mean when I say a difference in kind.

Tobin Harshaw thinks that Beck's meddling that undermined Scozzafava in the NY-23, that Beck himself celebrates as a purge of the insufficiently conservative, is the same as a blogger encouraging potential Democratic donors to vote with their dollars to encourage the rise of more progressive candidates. Beck used terror and undue pressure to force out Scozzafava--he and others declared her the enemy, and they moved to hound her out of the race to make room for a know-nothing loser candidate that will never be elected and cannot, therefore, do anything for their movement. Pam Spaulding says that people should direct their support within the party to candidates of a more progressive bent so that they win primaries and then, hopefully, the elections that will get them to a point where they can effect change.

There are similar problems with the struggle--both sides end up risking losing a seat to the opposition if they drum out more moderate candidates (Beck) or promote overly progressive candidates that the district as a whole cannot support (Spaulding). So, yes, in a sense, their issues are alike. But their methods are of such different timbre, I have difficulty believing that anyone could confuse the two.

Then again, this Opinator quoted Jonah "Liberals can be fascists if you rewrite the definition of fascism" Goldberg in his last column, where he was busily forwarding this lie that Obama was somehow materially damaged by supporting his party's non-starter candidates in two gubernatorial races. Clearly, we are not dealing with the sort of deep thinker who can appreciate the apples-to-oranges nature of an obvious difference in kind sort of comparison.
trinityvixen: (thinking Mario)
"The only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese. And that, in erotic terms, is the Catholic Church in a nutshell."

This absolutely piercing gem of insight comes from this debate (in five parts on YouTube). The question is whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. I think you can tell from that quote who "won" that debate.

Despite my professed agnosticism and atheism, I am not as sure of the answer as either party in this debate. Force for good, no. But not completely NOT a force for good, either. )

As ever, I make the caveat that I acknowledge not all religious people are like that. I have to make that concession because religious people feel attacked whenever someone points out, as I did under that cut, that their shit stinks just like everybody else's. Personally, I get quite annoyed at having to explain that when I cast generalizations, CLEARLY I'm not targeting people who aren't on TV making asses of themselves and their cults. (Because, let's be honest, there is only a difference in numbers between religion and cult, and with the way Scientology has filled its ranks, I'm beginning to think that even that definition no longer holds.) When I paint with this broad a brush, it's not about you, okay? It's that other guy who's making your look bad. It's that organization that controls how you believe whatever you believe in.

That? That to me is the problem: in order for people to have religion, it has to be controlled by an external source. And that external source, imbued with the power to dictate to people without fear of being questioned or forced to defend their work, is just a system ripe for abuse. That's why you get, as Stephen Fry points out, St. Peter's Basilica from the organization built on the back of a man who preached about the necessity of aiding the poor.
trinityvixen: (window)
So far this season, Heroes has not been awful. I credit much of this to Robert Knepper and the uber-creepy inclusion of the Carnival. Everything is better with circus freaks. Everything. Of course, this will all change in another few episodes and I'll regret saying this, but I'm even enjoying parts of this season. (My reviews at Pink Raygun for this season are here, here, here, and here.) There are definitely still problems, much of which stem from the show's loyalty to characters and the actors playing them.

That might be about to change, however. If you still care about spoiler warnings, don't read what's under the cut.Who am I kidding? I'm the only one still watching this show. )

And did I mention the racefail? )
trinityvixen: (cancer)
Wow, two uses of that "I hate people" tag in one day!

Before I get into this rant which will pretty much cement my reputation for being an evil librul bebbie killah, a note: I totally support fertility treatments. I am not opposed to them at all. I think anyone who wants to have a kid, who can support one and love one but who has trouble conceiving one should be able to do a course of fertility treatments if that is their wish. (I would prefer more people adopt, but I would never say they had to.)

THAT SAID...

Via Dan Savage, I got to this story about a Mormon Couple who used artificial means to conceive...and then remembered that they're supposed to let God sort out those messy fertility decisions. You know, like how he doesn't make it possible for most women to be able to have six babies at once and have all of them survive? That's totally cool. But removing two or so of them prior to God making that decision so that four, rather than two could have made it? That's MURDER.

I love this one commenter on Savage's post:

"Nature (procreation, not your strong subject) is a miraculous process that we as humans are never going to fully understand we can just admire it and let the process invented by the one who created us take its course. It has worked for millennia, its why you're here, you just have refused to take part of it and that's why you cannot understand it. "

Yep, birthing has worked for many thousands of years. If you weren't a creationist cretin, you'd realize that actually birthing has worked for reproductive method for, oh, millions of years, a, and that actually its killed a shit-ton of mothers and fetuses over those millions, b. It's not a process we can't know unless we take your airy indifferent attitude toward it. It's funny, but if we actually try to understand it, we DO understand it! I mean, the doctor told this couple that if they had all six fetuses develop they'd pretty much all die or be horribly crippled for life. And what do you know? He was right! Isn't that funny how the guy who knows a lot about having babies and keeps studying the effects on people having babies of, well, having babies, he knows stuff? This is nuts!

I would feel bad for these people who watched four of these babies who were clearly not meant to be die, if they hadn't brought this upon themselves. Next time you promise to live by God's will, perhaps you should just hope and pray for that fertility, huh? Losing a few cells in week three is a hell of a lot less traumatic than watching 70% formed babies die from complications you could have avoided.
trinityvixen: (question)
I have a few questions about this ruling.

Let me start by saying that it is amazing, given the kinds of questions even the liberal SCOTUS justices were asking, that they ruled as they did. I'd also like to add, as many on progressive blogs have been doing, that I, too, was certain before I read the details of the ruling that Thomas would be the lone dissenter, proudly trumpeting the rights of school districts to strip-search tweeners at any moment for any reason. So, hurrah, SCOTUS actually managed to rally and say, no, you can't strip search a teenage girl because some other teenage girl felt like getting her in trouble and passed on a rumor that the first girl was packing heat Advil. (Thomas' dissent is giving me the creeps, so I'll leave it to you guys to read about it rather than going into it myself.)

But I still have a couple of questions:

1) The school officials have been granted immunity from, I assume, civil prosecution despite SCOTUS having found that the officials violated the girl's rights. Since Justice Thomas is so certain that every mixed signal = everyone breaking the law, won't this not deter schools from doing such searches in the future, despite their unconstitutionality, because they know they can't be sued?

2) The school district is not immune. Is it really the best way to stop this kind of adult-power-tripping madness to say that individuals can demand students be officially pantsed but that only the school can be sued for it? Honestly, wouldn't it better to say the school should be ashamed for not disciplining this person or that one but that the real problem was that person deciding to take the law into their own hands?

Basically, what I, the non-lawyer, get out of this is the following:
School teachers/administrators cannot strip search students...but there won't be any personal penalty if they do. The school district will be liable, however, meaning that the victims of these administrators will be in the oh-so-enviable position of suing a public school. So victims of this kind of unwarranted and now definitely unconstitutional assault will get to chose between letting the incident slide or bankrupting the center of education for their fellow students. Won't that be fun.
trinityvixen: (blogging from work)
-Is this cat-shaving thing a crazy scientist thing or what? (Well, at least it's not just me!)

-Per this request video, I'm linking to this video:

Not the best video, but because it's being challenged by the imbeciles being (rightly) ridiculed in it despite the fact that they have no legitimate/legal recourse to do so, I post it. I like being ornery like that. For the love of Darwin, though, don't watch the video during the parts with Luskin talking. He's a moron. It HURTS how stupid and self-righteous he is.

(It's easier for YouTube to be reactionary about these sorts of copyrighted material claims given how many legitimate violations are running around on their website.)

-Paul Krugman gets it: incitement is dangerous.

-Hail Satan! Or, rather, Satanists, because they are awesomely snarky. (And as commenters point out, more rigorously opposed to sexual offenders than, say, the Catholic Church.)

-Linked to this via Twitter:

I need to watch Flight of the Concords, clearly, if this is the kind of quality music they make.

-Last but not least, I think I had a request for this video from an SPN fan:


(There is also a video to that song for Heroes. I refuse to link to it. Search YouTube if you must, but really, who must do anything for or about Heroes except the people paid to do so?)

Profile

trinityvixen: (Default)
trinityvixen

February 2015

S M T W T F S
1234567
89 1011121314
15161718192021
22232425 262728

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 11:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios