Wednesday/Thursday Highlights

Yikes. Busy busy.

  1. Climate changers and the law.
  2. Exactly a point I’ve been (unsuccessfully I think) been trying to make repeatedly.
  3. Well, I wish I had time to listen to this.
  4. Those three young girls rioting in Russia cathedrals. Imagine for a moment that the Polish President, Mr Komorowski, was a practicing catholic and some rock group interrupted a catholic service of remembrance for the slain at Auschwitz. Would they be defended strongly … or would even the left suggest that there is a place and a time for political activism.  Read the link for some context.
  5. Speaking of which.
  6. Eat and run … yer not doing it right.
  7. Remember the press is very very blue. Not so much the readers.
  8. Using your hammer to hammer.
  9. RepRap? Never heard of it, but it sounds interesting.
  10. Trade wars.
  11. Educational?
  12. That cheap overseas labor … fixed. See more here? And more.
  13. Mr Obama against Obamacare on principles.
  14. On the left side of the aisle, saying thank you = sucking up. Weird.

40 responses to “Wednesday/Thursday Highlights

  1. Re #4, the fact is the girls were sentenced to two years for publicly insulting Putin, not disrupting the service. Granted disorderly conduct does merit some minor punishment. The fact is, though, the Russian Orthodox Church has clearly aligned itself with Russia’s political power system and is against religious freedom. Not a good thing at all.

  2. 13.Mr Obama against Obamacare on principles.

    Obama’s quote

    “So what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women.”

    Please cite any passage in the Obamacare law that makes any health care decisions on behalf of woman (or men for that matter)? For example, can you cite a passage in the law requiring pregnant women to deliever by c-section? Are men over 50 required to get prostate tests once every 5 years? Exactly what health care decisions are made by gov’t in the law?

  3. 7.Remember the press is very very blue. Not so much the readers.

    I have some comments on this one, I think it paints a tribal picture pretty well here. Conservatives are highly tribal, eager to read each others books and little else. Liberals are highly atribal, they will only read other liberal’s books if they think they have something exceptional to offer and will even dabble in conservativebooks for the sake of disagreeing with conservatives. As a result, Amazon’s ‘heat map’ is almost uniformly red, even in areas we know are quite blue like California.

  4. As a side note, I noticed they left out Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great as a Blue book (although, oddly, another book of his essays is listed on the Red side) even though other atheist orientated books are listed as Blue. That book was very popular and I remember seeing people reading it in public more than a few times, I’m wondering if that exclusion is making the map look Redder than it really is.

  5. 8.Using your hammer to hammer.

    Stephenson has a new book of essays called Some Remarks, I recommend grabbing it from the library when you can. Pretty fast read.

  6. 7.Remember the press is very very blue. Not so much the readers.

    Erm, the readers of propaganda pamphlets, maybe.

    Stephenson has a new book of essays called Some Remark

    Awesome, thanks!

  7. JA,

    Erm, the readers of propaganda pamphlets, maybe.

    Well, “propaganda pamphlets” is a good description for the MSM … but that’s your inadvertent, not intentional point. My remarks was that liberals have their POV pumped at them via ordinary channels, while conservatives have fewer choices.

    You claim you (as a liberal) can see things from other viewpoints better than conservatives. Yet apparently you cannot even watch news and view how that might be seen by a conservative, for if you did the question of bias would be mooted.

    Boonton,

    As a side note, I noticed they left out Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great as a Blue book …

    I hadn’t realized God is Not Geat was political commentary.

    I think it paints a tribal picture pretty well here. Conservatives are highly tribal, eager to read each others books and little else

    Step back and look for tribal tendencies by liberals. You’ll find them easily if you look. Start from the left coast “highly individual … I gotta be me” 70s movements which produced identical dress, identical speech in hordes of youngsters (who were adamantly not conservative) and move forward from there. The “I’m not tribal” is in fact yet another of your tribal markings.

    Some Remarks is in my in queue.

  8. Mark,

    I can certainly see how the MSM would look biased from your point of view. That doesn’t mean it is biased against your point of view, of course, just that if your view is warped enough, a relatively unbiased take on reality looks biased.

  9. I hadn’t realized God is Not Geat was political commentary.

    It’s not but other atheist books made it on the ‘Blue’ list and although it probably doesn’t make a huge difference for the Red side, I’m not sure how his book of essays merits being classified as a ‘Red book’.

    Step back and look for tribal tendencies by liberals. You’ll find them easily if you look. Start from the left coast “highly individual … I gotta be me” 70s movements which produced identical dress, identical speech in hordes of youngsters (who were adamantly not conservative) and move forward from there.

    We are looking objectively for this evidence in reading (or book buying) and it’s not there. Otherwise we’d see blue states quite clearly blue when it comes to book buying. I don’t have any way to measure how much ‘everybody dressed the same’ in the late 1970’s. My impression, though, is that I suspect there’s more diversity in dress post 1950 than pre. Some of that, no doubt, is prosperity. We are in a time where everyone, even the poor, can afford a wardrobe of some sort. On the other hand clothes are mass produced, there’s only so much individualism people have time to express.

    Perhaps you’d be less objecting if I replaced ‘tribal’ with ‘loyality’. Conservatives are more loyal to the cause hence to each other. That is why, say, Denish D’Souza is able to make a living. They are willing to read each others books, even if they don’t think they are quite that good, but purposefully avoid liberal books (esp. ones that might be good). Liberals, on the other hand, don’t care about other liberals and won’t be inclined to buy their books unless they believe they are exceptionally good.

    Good to see you back!

  10. JA,
    I see, you’re so biased as to figure your bias is unbiased. There’s probably a word for that that … delusional comes to mind … but that doesn’t quite work. Boonton, it seems, thinks tribal is better.

  11. Boonton,

    Conservatives are more loyal to the cause hence to each other. That is why, say, Denish D’Souza is able to make a living. They are willing to read each others books, even if they don’t think they are quite that good, but purposefully avoid liberal books (esp. ones that might be good). Liberals, on the other hand, don’t care about other liberals and won’t be inclined to buy their books unless they believe they are exceptionally good.

    Oh, perhaps its just that liberals have no new ideas, whereas all the new ideas are on the other side. Liberals as you know all got their POV in college and have no reason to see things any other way, after all, as JA supposes it is their point of view that is “unbiased” therefore needs no consideration or adjustment.

    How can you pretend that liberals are less loyal … the prior comment just suggested that his point of view was unbiased unlike the “other side” which was “warped”. That is nothing if not loyal (or tribal if you prefer).

  12. I didn’t say my point of view was unbiased. I said the MSM is not liberally biased.

    We’ve gone through the list before, but on issue after issue, Republicans base their beliefs on literal falsehoods. From global warming to economics to a million other issues, your beliefs are based on things that are demonstrably untrue. Even an MSM that bends over backwards to present “both sides” will be seen as biased when you are so mistaken about everything that reality itself seems biased.

  13. Oh, perhaps its just that liberals have no new ideas, whereas all the new ideas are on the other side

    A hypothesis that works great, unless you actually start looking at the list of Red books.

    I’ll also note that you’ve committed the bipartisan fallacy here:

    Step back and look for tribal tendencies by liberals. You’ll find them easily if you look.

    As I noted before, the bipartisan fallacy is the assumption that one trait that one demographic group might have must be shared in equal intensity by another demographic group. In fact if you think about it, exactly equal intensity would be quite unexpected unless there was some dynamic creating it.

    You are correct that it is human nature to be tribal. You are also correct that people who like to think of themselves as espcially non-tribal (i.e. hipsters, counterculturites, etc.) often end up just fooling themselves into ignoring how often they are slaves to the trendy.

    However it doesn’t follow that liberal book buyers exhibit the same intensity of tribal loyality to the ideology as conservative book buyers.

  14. JA,
    You have to be kidding. On what planet is it “demonstrably true” that climate change has human origins, that the ‘multiplier’ of government spending is close to 2, and so on. These were your top examples, which alas aren’t demonstrably anything.

    These things you think are demonstrably true .. aren’t. It’s your tribalism warping things that leads you to think so.

    Reality is not biased. Just you and the liberal MSM.

    You’re making Boonton’s argument about loyalty very difficult, when you demonstrate blind loyalty so clearly.

  15. Where did anyone say the multplier is 2? The theory would say the multiplier is a variable number which will go up as the economy is more distant from full employment.

  16. Boonton,
    I’m sorry. You are right nobody says it is two. But what it is is a matter of contention and not a “verifiable” sort of data point. This was in fact one of the recent topics of disagreement about the economy of the sort that JA cited. He indicated that the right’s viewpoint on that was warped and the left’s was verifiable. What the multiplier might be is not verifiable, just as few if any of the “verifiable” things he pretends are contentious are either.

  17. I was thinking of more obvious things like “trickle-down economics” or “lowering taxes [from where they are now] increases revenue.”

    It’s hard for you to see, of course, since you think these things are true. How about the Todd Akin thing, though? Hopefully even you can see that he believes something demonstrably untrue: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. ”

    Here’s why he believes that. He believes that abortion is always wrong, so it’s inconvenient to accept that rape victims can get pregnant since then he has to insist that they are forced to have the rapist’s child. (He also throws in the “legitimate” modifier to try to imply that a lot of rapes aren’t really rape.) Therefore, POOF, rape victims hardly ever get pregnant.

    Prominent Republicans quickly distanced themselves from him because they’re already doing horribly with women voters, but you can see that he still has some support from the usual suspects (FRC, Kirk Cameron, etc.)

    Now any media outlet that points out that rape victims get pregnant about as often as would be expected without the magical “shutdown” posited by Akin would be seen by Akin and his fellow morons as biased, do you see? By simply reporting facts, they would be seen as extremely biased.

  18. JA,
    Hmm. Let’s examine some of those,

    “lowering taxes [from where they are now] increases revenue.”

    First, that’s called “stimulus” and economists on the left think that would help now … and it helps kickstart the economy oddly enough it would raise revenue. Second, demonstrably? How? How do you demonstrate it?

    “trickle-down economics”

    What that means, setting aside left-wing spin, is that when the economy does well, everyone does better. How is that demonstrably false? How do you think that if the economy does not do better only some sectors benefit? And yes, when the economy booms, the rich benefit more. You seem to find this problematic, yet when the economy has a recession, the rich are also more affected and this in contrast is not problematic. That I find odd.

    How about the Todd Akin thing, though? Hopefully even you can see that he believes something demonstrably untrue: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. ”

    Demonstrably? Let’s see … there are (really … really?!) scientific papers out there showing that neuro-transmitter and adrenal levels associated with extreme terror at the time of coitus do or do not affect fertility? Who the heck does these studies? So, in the absence of studies … how do you figure this is demonstrably false? Just because you don’t believe it?

    And no, the reasonable explanation he throws the “legitimate” is (I suspect) not to de-legitimize other rapes but to propose the hypothesis that terror affects fertility … and he’s trying (badly) to categorize rapes a way that associates the victims emotional response of fear, terror, and dread with rapes that do not have that content (which might include some statutory, or those under the influence of strong doses of alcohol, benzodiazepines, or GHB which would not have the strong emotional content but are still rape). So if you were to try to categorize rapes as those including terror and fear and those which do not in an off the cuff speech … “legitimate” might be a term you use, but regret later.

    Here’s why he believes that. He believes that abortion is always wrong, so it’s inconvenient to accept that rape victims can get pregnant since then he has to insist that they are forced to have the rapist’s child. (He also throws in the “legitimate” modifier to try to imply that a lot of rapes aren’t really rape.) Therefore, POOF, rape victims hardly ever get pregnant.

    Hmm. Let’s try a parallel. Here’s why JA believes in human origins of climate change. He believes that human industry causes all sorts of environmental ills and is primarily caused by evil corporations being uncaring or unconscious of the environmental effects of their industry. So its inconvenient to accept that climate change is caused by natural factors when he can blame industry with which he has other issues. Therefore, POOF, the “A” of AGW must be true.

    Please note I don’t believe the studies noted above have been done or should be done or that fertility is affected measurably by adrenaline or fear. What if a measurable effect was found, that might be interesting, eh?

    Now any media outlet that points out that rape victims get pregnant about as often as would be expected without the magical “shutdown” posited by Akin would be seen by Akin and his fellow morons as biased, do you see? By simply reporting facts, they would be seen as extremely biased.

    Except that few reports of that sort came out … and the ones trying to shut down Akin are the GOP, the Democrats are happy to have him running and they are shutting down the reports (’cause the media is biased).

    By simply reporting facts, they would be seen as extremely biased.

    Your suspicion of this as what constitutes media bias indicates when you say you see the bias in the media … you really don’t.

  19. I think the Akin thing deserves to be examined in more detail as it illustrates the right wing’s tribal excessiveness….

    Mark is correct that the hypothesis that a very violent rape may decrease fertility is a valid one. It would make evolutionary sense (since pregnancy is very dangerous for women, women who carried such a gene would have an advantage over women who didn’t, it would also make rape disadvantageous for males as a reproductive strategy). It probably has NOT been tested. After all you can’t ethically do a clinical study where you have a control group of women who have consenual sex and another group who are violently raped to see if there’s any difference in conception rates! But we have no idea. We know there are forceful, violent rapes that result in pregnancies so even if some type of ‘shutdown’ system happens in the body, it’s certainly not a sure thing. It may only offer some partial protection or it may be that such a protective mechanism doesn’t even exist. In fact it the opposite may even be true, adrenal levels during a rape might even promote a pregnancy. Evolution isn’t always friendly to human rights and dignity!

    But as fine as that may be as a hypothesis, it’s one that is morphed by the right wing echo chamber into a proven fact because it would be helpful to the ideology if it was true (i.e. you don’t have to make a rape exception to abortion as biology ensures a raped woman won’t need an abortion!) Since the right tends to only pay attention to what other right wingers say, by the time Akin is on the Huckabee (a remarkably rape friendly Republican) show, he repeats this non-fact as though everyone knows it. Naturally those of us who are not immersed 24-7 in the echo chamber are shocked to hear this whopper and react accordingly.

    And of course if you take Akin’s words literally, a lot of nasty implications fall out. It means women who do get pregnant from being raped weren’t really raped, on some level they consented to it In fact, it actually means a man who is accused of rape can use the victim’s pregnancy as a legal defense!

    But of course none of this has probably occurred to Akin and others like him. Why? Because no matter how bad an argument they make, their kin will never challenge them on it. For example, look at Hucklebee himself, when he was gov. he had a fight over his appointee who did the exact same thing, claim that rape somehow prevents pregnancy! Yet when Akin spouts the same nonesense the truth is of secondary priority to supporting another member of the tribe.

    Mark likewise is not far behind pretending that Akin said something he didn’t. That he made some claim that there might be some biological mechanism to inhibit conception during rape. His claim was that the body ‘shut down’ pregnancy hence a rape exemption to an abortion ban was unneeded.

    Well the problem is Akin must claim the body fully protects rape victims from pregnancy. If it offers anything less than 100% protection, then the ‘biological shutdown’ argument does not justify no including an exemption for rape victims in an abortion ban. Akin belongs to a tribe that picks facts rather than takes them from reality. Because the ‘shutdown 100%’ is a fact that allows him to justify his policy, it is embraced even though it is false. Pretending anything else happened by putzing around with potential ways you can make a non-lie claim of ‘biological shutdown’ is just fellow traveling.

  20. Sigh… try as I might, I cannot find a Republican position so obviously false that Mark will not defend it. Of course there are studies. You would know that if you spend TEN SECONDS trying to figure out the truth instead of contorting yourself in order to defend the indefensible.

    I mean, google “rape pregnancy study.” Other than the 2nd hit, which is one of the kinds of places I’m always talking about (“Rape Pregnancies Are Rare – Christian Life Resources” LOL) there is a ton of good information just one or two clicks away.

    But you don’t want “good information.” You want to close your eyes as long as possible and then turn to propaganda outlets like “Christian Life Resources” or whatever cockamamie doctor talked to Todd Akin.

  21. JA,

    Of course there are studies.

    I’m sorry. I don’t see any studies of the type I described. Neither do you.

    I mean, google “rape pregnancy study.”

    OK. So what? You find that information credible. That pregnancy from rape is higher than normal unprotected sex? You find that credible? That seems just as suspect as the other way. Besides of what good is that sort of study to the question? No adrenal or measurement of fear response is done in any of those surveys. If this was a anti-AGW study you’d toss them as statistically irrelevant. Why the lack of skepticism? Hmmm … one guess .. liberal tribalism. We’ll see if Boonton calls you on it.

    You want to close your eyes as long as possible and then turn to propaganda outlets like “Christian Life Resources” or whatever cockamamie doctor talked to Todd Akin.

    Cite! CITE!!!!! WHERE the frak do you see any freaking evidence in what I’ve said that I’ve turned to “propaganda” outlets. What and where. Quote me. Cite me. What I’ve actually said is that I don’t think studies of women in controlled settings correlating neuro-transmitter and adrenal levels associated with fear, terror and so on with fertility have not been done. And oddly enough not a single link you “easily” found matches that description.

    I cannot find a Republican position so obviously false that Mark will not defend it.

    What am I defending? Let’s see. I’ve said I don’t think there is a correlation. How is that a defense? I’ve noted that Mr Akin has very few GOP defenders (and I’m not one of them). So I’m not alone in this non-defense.

  22. Cite! CITE!!!!! WHERE the frak do you see any freaking evidence in what I’ve said that I’ve turned to “propaganda” outlets.

    No, you’re still in the eyes shut phase, where you can probably remain on this issue since it will go away. It’s only after an issue becomes mainstream that you turn to your sides’ think tanks and op-eds and cherry-picked obscure scientists for your propaganda.

    What I’ve actually said is that I don’t think studies of women in controlled settings correlating neuro-transmitter and adrenal levels associated with fear, terror and so on with fertility have not been done.

    So you just went off on a wild tangent? Or are you trying to shift the goalposts? Akin was clearly implying that pregnancy from rape is rare. The studies clearly show it isn’t. It’s black and white and, as usual, you want to change the subject or run away.

  23. JA,

    No, you’re still in the eyes shut phase, where you can probably remain on this issue since it will go away. It’s only after an issue becomes mainstream that you turn to your sides’ think tanks and op-eds and cherry-picked obscure scientists for your propaganda.

    Eyes shut?! About what? About the fact that the majority of the GOP think this Akin notion is not true? Or that I’m not defending Akin? Or that there is zero evidence expect in your non-reality based mind that I’ve turned to any of my “sides” think tanks, op-eds or cherry picked scientists. I didn’t turn to any think tanks … and neither did you.

    So you just went off on a wild tangent? Or are you trying to shift the goalposts? Akin was clearly implying that pregnancy from rape is rare.

    What Akins freaking said was that pregnancy from “legitimate” rapes were rare, and clarified legitimate as those involving force and violence and that the word legitimate to make that distinction was a poor choice of words. I’m not running from nothing. You want to move the goalposts not me. The “wild tangent” was not wild, it was in direct response immediately after you brought this up for discussion as your putative example. You then shifted the goalposts saying that yet another person, whose statement I’m not familiar with and haven’t seen, that these pregancies aren’t just rare … that fear/terror as contraceptive is 100% effective. What fraction of GOP voters do you think hold that position? .5% .05% .005? .0005? Do you think I’m defending that position? On what do you base that assumption?

    Boonton,

    Mark is correct that the hypothesis that a very violent rape may decrease fertility is a valid one. It would make evolutionary sense (since pregnancy is very dangerous for women, women who carried such a gene would have an advantage over women who didn’t, it would also make rape disadvantageous for males as a reproductive strategy).

    That could go the other way, children with violent genes might be an adaptive advantage and fertility may increase. Yet … JA here has a strong opinion about it (that there is no effect or perhaps that studies conclusively show it’s increased fertility … we’ll let him let us know what effect he thinks fear/terror have on fertility), he clearly has an opinion on it though. I, however, think that there is no study and my default position would be no effect but there are reasons why an effect could be suggested. But again, the ethics of data collection bring you to Nazi/Death camp medical ethical territory.

    it’s one that is morphed by the right wing echo chamber into a proven fact because it would be helpful to the ideology if it was true

    Seriously. All the conservative echo chamber talk I hear about is the other way. That it isn’t this and it’s bullcrap. But hey, you’re clearly more in tune with the right wing echo chamber than me.

    That he made some claim that there might be some biological mechanism to inhibit conception during rape.

    No. I claimed it might go one way or the other but that there was no data.

    If it offers anything less than 100% protection, then the ‘biological shutdown’ argument does not justify no including an exemption for rape victims in an abortion ban.

    Now you’re making stuff up. Show were Mr Akins suggests such legislation.

    For the record, I no longer think rape exceptions make sense … and that pregnancies do occur from rape. That makes as much sense as allowing mom to commit infanticide on account of her being mugged or assaulted in another way. The kid is innocent. If mom thinks she might have a problem raising the kid, then … you do realize adoption is a “sellers” market? There are alternatives that don’t involve more violence against innocents.

  24. That pregnancy from rape is higher than normal unprotected sex? You find that credible?

    Of course it’s credible, as a hypothesis. You don’t rely upon a hypothesis, though, unless you can amass evidence to prove it’s worthy to believe. Since it seems almost no studies have been done at all, my credibility here reigns supreme as I’ve stated:

    It’s possible the body acts in such a way as to prevent pregnancy

    It’s possible the body acts in such a way as to reduce the chance of pregnancy

    It’s possible the body does not act in any way that effects the chance of pregnancy

    It’s possible the body acts in a way to increase the chance of pregnancy.

    We can say with 100% certainity that my statement of our uncertainity contains the absolute truth.

    Seriously. All the conservative echo chamber talk I hear about is the other way. That it isn’t this and it’s bullcrap. But hey, you’re clearly more in tune with the right wing echo chamber than me.

    Except we don’t. The pro-life side has been repeating this claim for years. Hucklebee got into trouble years ago nominating someone who asserted this falsehood. Yet despite all that debunking, Akin blurts it out again as if it’s common knowledge and has never been seriously questioned before. Well in his case that’s the truth, this is common knowledge in the echo chamber where the only opinions that anyone listens too either agree with Akin’s statement or are silent about it. Only when outside reality finally got fed up and made it clear that not only could it cost the GOP the seat Akin is running for but other seats as well did your echo chamber begin to call it bullcrap.

    Now you’re making stuff up. Show were Mr Akins suggests such legislation.

    You seem ignorant of the context of the statement. Akins was asked about his support of an abortion ban that made no exception for rape. His response was that ‘legitimate rape’ induces a ‘biological shutdown’ mechanism that prevents pregnancy, in other words an rape exemption would be moot as you wouldn’t have pregnant rape victims to begin with.

    Your response about supporting an abortion ban for rape victims is irrelevant. Akins wasn’t claiming that harsh justification. He was attempting to claim such a thing would never happen therefore he wasn’t being a ‘bad guy’ in opposing an exemption.

    What boggles the mind, though, is how an intelligent political person like Akins who makes it all the way to a nomination for a Senate seat could assert such a thing without realizing the huge implications of what he was saying. Namely that rape victims who did get pregnant, by his logic, either weren’t really raped or in some part of their mind really consented to it. That men accused of rape could claim a pregnant victim vindicated them. The answer to this question, IMO, is that people like Akins have lived far too long in an echo chamber where the only voices welcome to consideration are ones that agree with him already. Many on the right have gotten to the point where they can’t even realize or anticpate objections to their ideas. Not asking them here to accept the criticism, just at least understand and account for plausible objections.

  25. Boonton,
    If I remember correctly one of the links in the search JA suggested indicated a 30% pregnancy rate resulting from rape. Normal consensual unprotected sex has about a 9% pregnancy success rate. So, do you think the statistic is credible or did someone fudge the numbers? That was my question.

    Except we don’t.

    Sorry. Yes we do. Immediately after the quote hit the wire, NRO and WSJ were condemning it. Not a “while later” after outside reality caught up. Right away. Sorry. You are wrong.

    The pro-life side has been repeating this claim for years.

    ??? First you cite the echo chamber talking about this. When pressed you switch to “the pro-life” side. OK. Demonstrate with links that this view is a mainstream pro-life viewpoint. Or concede that you are being a tribal loyalist in holding unwarranted negative views of the mainstream views of the other tribe.

  26. Boonton,

    Akins wasn’t claiming that harsh justification.

    Harsh? Huh?

  27. JA,
    One suggestion … put the Akin “legimate rape” -> this is the mainstream GOP/conservative view in context of the Democrat/left defense of Roman Polanski kerfuffle. After all, various defenders were claiming that drugging and raping a girl wasn’t “rape rape” it was consensual ’cause she was there.

    The studies clearly show it isn’t.

    No. The studies don’t show that. Boonton doesn’t even think so. Sorry.

  28. If I remember correctly one of the links in the search JA suggested indicated a 30% pregnancy rate resulting from rape. Normal consensual unprotected sex has about a 9% pregnancy success rate. So, do you think the statistic is credible or did someone fudge the numbers? That was my question.

    I’ll just toss it out as a hypothesis, do you remember the study that showed that strippers make more in tips when they are ovulating than when they are not? Perhaps rapists are more inclined to choose ovulating women as victims whereas normal consensual sex is usually with a more regular partner rather than a random hookup.

    Sorry. Yes we do. Immediately after the quote hit the wire, NRO and WSJ were condemning it. Not a “while later” after outside reality caught up.

    Indeed, both outlets could see the firestorm coming. Odd, though, the host of the show didn’t see it himself being that the very same thing caused a problem in his governorship.

    . Demonstrate with links that this view is a mainstream pro-life viewpoint

    This would be trivially easy, plenty of pro-life groups have touted the line that rape induced pregnancy is either very rare or doesn’t happen due to some hypothetical ‘biological shutdown’.

    Harsh? Huh?

    Akins claim was that the universe is setup in such a way that no woman would ever have to worry about getting pregnant from a rape. If that was reality it would be very nice. Your assertion is women can get pregnant from rape but if they do they should bear with it and give birth even if they don’t want too….and possibly even be forced too since you seem to be leaning towards accepting a ban on abortion. Clearly that’s a much harsher justification for not having a rape exemption than Akins. You can’ argue it’s justified but you can’t really argue that it’s more harsh.

  29. Boonton,

    I’ll just toss it out as a hypothesis, do you remember the study that showed that strippers make more in tips when they are ovulating than when they are not? Perhaps rapists are more inclined to choose ovulating women as victims whereas normal consensual sex is usually with a more regular partner rather than a random hookup.

    And this effect does not apply to consensual partners?

    Odd, though, the host of the show didn’t see it himself being that the very same thing caused a problem in his governorship.

    Host of what show?

    This would be trivially easy, plenty of pro-life groups have touted the line that rape induced pregnancy is either very rare or doesn’t happen due to some hypothetical ‘biological shutdown’.

    Mainstream? Saying its easy? So …. ? You made claim. Defend it.

    You can only claim it’s harsh on the planet on which children are a bad thing.

  30. Boonton,

    This would be trivially easy, plenty of pro-life groups have touted the line that rape induced pregnancy is either very rare or doesn’t happen due to some hypothetical ‘biological shutdown’.

    So. When have you seen this on First Things for example … now that we’ve also decided NRO and WSJ op-eds are not mainstream.

  31. And this effect does not apply to consensual partners?

    No it wouldn’t. A man who wants sex and tends to be with a consensual partner will find it easier to, well, just have sex with that partner rather than go out and find a new partner who happens to be ovulating and make it happen in a day or so before ovulation stops. A rapist, though, is a bit like the guy in the strip joint, he can choose someone and have no intention of maintaining an ongoing relationship with them.

    Host of what show?

    You seem unaware that Akin was a guest on Mike Huckabee’s show when he said the offending comments. Back in 1998 then governor Huckabee had to fend off an uproar when he appointed a state Rep. to run Arkansas’s Health Department who had claimed “God’s little shield” prevented true rape victims from ever getting pregnant.

    Leaving aside being totally ignorant of human biology seems to actually serve as a qualification among some Republicans to run a state’s Health Department….it is rather odd isn’t it that this little show seems to run every few years?

    Mainstream? Saying its easy? So …. ? You made claim. Defend it.

    What exactly is a mainstream pro-life group? Being that only maybe 20% of people feel abortion is a very important issue to them, any group dedicated to the abortion issue on either side is not going to be ‘mainstream’ technically. More to your point you can read about the history of the ‘rape shield’ theory here: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/akin-not-the-first-a-short-history-of-the-false-no-pregnancy-from-rape-theory.php

    You can only claim it’s harsh on the planet on which children are a bad thing.

    It would be nice if pro-lifers, in addition to recognizing children as human beings, would extend the same consideration to women. They do, after all, make up about half of us.

  32. the Democrat/left defense of Roman Polanski kerfuffle.

    Have to call bullshit on this inflammatory slander of the Democrats and left. A few wacko celebrities does not equal “the Democrat/left.” In general, the Democrats and left are much stronger against what Akin would presumably consider “illegitimate” rape than the right is.

    I honestly can’t believe you’re sticking by your defense of Akin.

  33. JA,

    A few wacko celebrities does not equal “the Democrat/left.”

    Exactly my point.

    I honestly can’t believe you’re sticking by your defense of Akin.

    And I honestly can’t figure out how you think I’m defending him.

  34. One suggestion … put the Akin “legimate rape” -> this is the mainstream GOP/conservative view in context of the Democrat/left defense of Roman Polanski kerfuffle.

    OooOOooo bigoted statement by Mark! I demand to see evidence that the entire Democratic Left has agreed that they feel Polanski is innocent!

    More importantly, those who do defend Polanski, that I’ve heard or read, base their defense on the charge that the prosecutor and judge had improperly conspired together. This would make the ‘left defense’ of Polanski really a criticism of the judicial process used in his prosecution, not an argument that rape is ok. That plus the fact that Polanski never plead guilty to rape and the rape charge was dropped by the prosecutor means this isn’t a rape case.

  35. Boonton,

    ooOOooo bigoted statement by Mark

    It would be if I was making the statement. I’m not. I’m saying those who want to tar the Akin view point as mainstream are making the equivalent sort of statement. If you want to call my statement bigoted … and want to claim that the Akin view is mainstream … then you’re in rhetorical trouble. If you aren’t claiming the Akin view is mainstream then we’re good.

    The remark in question was in (well regarded on the left) celeb terming the Polanski rape as not “rape rape”.

  36. The remark in question was in (well regarded on the left) celeb terming the Polanski rape as not “rape rape”.

    well regarded on the left? That’s a bigoted statement, unless you can demonstrate that the entire left regards Polanski well.

    As for terming it “not rape rape”, rape is defined legally by California’s criminal statutes and Polanski was neither convicted of rape nor plead guilty to it. He did plead guilty to criminal intercourse with a minor and that crime is indeed ‘not rape rape’.

  37. Boonton,
    Let me get this straight … JA characterizes my position on the Akin kerfuffle as a defense.

    As for terming it “not rape rape”, rape is defined legally by California’s criminal statutes and Polanski was neither convicted of rape nor plead guilty to it. He did plead guilty to criminal intercourse with a minor and that crime is indeed ‘not rape rape’.

    Sounds like a defense to me. Are you defending Mr Polanski with the rest of the lest.

    And the “well regarded” was not in reference to Mr Polanski but the celeb who coined the “rape rape” phrase. I think it was Ms Goldberg.

  38. Sounds like a defense to me. Are you defending Mr Polanski with the rest of the lest.

    It’s a simple statement of fact, Polanski has never been convicted of rape nor has he ever plead guilty of it. If he should ever return to custody and if CA recharges him with rape and wins a conviction that fact will change.

    And the “well regarded” was not in reference to Mr Polanski but the celeb who coined the “rape rape” phrase. I think it was Ms Goldberg.

    You mean Whoopie Goldberg? OK That would seem to be a single person…not ‘Democrats’ or ‘the left’ or even celebrities in the plural.

    More importantly, it’s still not even close to Akin’s statement. If Goldberg did characterize the Polanski incident as ‘not rape rape’ she was talking about a single incident and questioning the merits of a charge. Saying, for example, that you felt the rape claim agianst Mike Tyson was not valid….or the claim by Al Sharpton that Twana Brawley was raped back in the late 80’s was not true…is hardly saying that rape isn’t real or that a whole class of rapes should be deemed minor. Akin’s statement, if taken at face value, is that if a woman became pregnant, she was not really raped period.

  39. Boonton,
    Your defense continues. Remind me, which side of the aisle is claiming that rape is under reported because prosecutions fail to bring charges in so many cases and that witnesses are reluctant to come forward? That would be the left or the right? Yet oddly enough, when the person is a rich member of the left leaning artistic establishment all that prior rhetoric goes out the window and even Mr Boonton swings for de-fence. This is more than a little weird. You say on the one hand, that a minority of Democrat are defending Mr Polanski. Yet, you seem to be one of them as you earnestly and strongly defend statutory rape and sodomy by the rich and powerful. Cognitive dissonance not getting a little loud over there?

    You are the one who, without warrant, tacked the 100% effective contraceptive tag to Mr Akins statement. I’ve not seen that said by him. Just you … one question is why do you need to do that?

  40. Your defense continues. Remind me, which side of the aisle is claiming that rape is under reported because prosecutions fail to bring charges in so many cases and that witnesses are reluctant to come forward?

    You are confusing the argument about one particular case versus an argument that a whole class of actions should be ruled ‘not rape’ (or ‘not rape rape’).

    Consider a person who argues that he feels OJ was innocent of murdering his ex-wife versus a man who asserts the Bible gives a man permission to kill his wife regardless of whether or not they are divoced and doing so wouldn’t be murder. Both men may agree that OJ should be considered not guilty of murder.

    Now clearly you may say the first man isn’t evaluating the evidence properly. You may say he is biased in favor of OJ because of his race, or because he loves his football career, or because he loves the Naked Gun movies. But as faulty as his judgement is, he can’t be compared to the second man who favors a blanket ruling that husbands cannot legally be convicted of murdering their wives.

    You are the one who, without warrant, tacked the 100% effective contraceptive tag to Mr Akins statement. I’ve not seen that said by him.

    It follows through from his logic. There’s a strain of pro-life argument that goes like this:

    A We are not asserting woman may not control their bodies!

    Q: How can you say then they can’t get an abortion if they get pregnant?

    A: Pregnancy is a risk of sex, when one decides to do something they have to accept there may be consquences.

    Q: What about women who are raped?

    A: They can’t get pregnant due to the extreme circumstances of a rape.

    If the final argument was true, the pro-lifer could assert he was respecting a woman’s right to have some say over her body. But it has to be true 100%.

    Now at this point pro-lifers break. Some pretend it’s true 100% of the time, hence they are consistent and coherent.

    Others admit it’s not true, therefore they make explicit allowances for rape victims (granted they may advocate that women be discouraged from aborting in those circumstances…but they leave it open for a woman to do so if she insists).

    Others admit that the first assertion is in fact true. That the woman’s right to sovereignity over her body is overruled by the child…even if the woman did nothing ‘at fault’. This is what I mean by ‘harsh’. You are still free to advocate that, though. After all many assert the state has a the right to draft young men and put their lives in harms way in war.

    Now Akins assertion that it’s 100% effective is less ‘harsh’ from the abortion perspective but it has nasty consquences for rape victims in that it means that every rape victim who became pregnant must have either consented or was at least partially ‘consenting’ somehow. When he quickly backed down from that assertion, logic requires him to choose the harsher path.

    What Akin actually said here means nothing. I reserve the right to draw valid logical conclusions from a speaker’s assertion and treat them as being endorsed by the speaker directly. If you say “Those who are devient should be killed” and then you say “Jews are devient”. It’s fair of me to conclude you also endorse killing Jews. Claiming you held back from actually speaking those words is not a defense IMO.

    This is why your Polanski equation doesn’t work. Asserting that one does not believe one particular case was rape says nothing about the entire class of rape (or alleged rapes).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>