Comments

  2. Sili says

    The swipe at the FDA was unnecessary. It’s not like drugs are exactly being approved fast.

    Because ‘the public’ wants 100% safe and 100% effective. And that’s not how science works. Sadly noöne in power wants to acknowledge that cost-benefit analyses really are in order in some cases. If a drug can help cure my cancer but ups my risk of congestive heartfailure by 40% that might well be a risk I’d be willing to take (example pulled out my arse because I’m lazy).

    But otherwise excellent piece. The “separate but equal” really hits it home for me still.

  5. Becca says

    It makes me wish I could post a comment directly on their website. So much is true and critically important. The swipe at GMO in food irks me (it may be ecologically questionable, but it does not strike me as the same safety hazard pesticides or even hormones in foodstuffs do).

  6. says

    The swipe at GM and irradiated food was something else that annoyed me. Yeah, let’s go back to invoking random mutations and pretending that ‘irradiated’ means ‘radioactive’.

  7. travc says

    The problem with the FDA isn’t the public wanting “100% safe and 100% effective”, it is about the public need to actually have honest data. Yeah, a cancer cure with a side of effect of possible heart failure would be fine. Hell, the FDA should (probably would) approve it… The problem is that right now the manufacturer would likely under-report the severity of the side effects and the FDA would just trust them.

    The swipe at GM and irradiated food annoys me. I’m fine with labeling actually, but the fact that so many people are irrationally and stupidly afraid pisses me off. My main problem with GM is the ‘business model’ and irradiation sterilization is actually a good thing and will save lives. Still, no reason people shouldn’t have a right to know.

  8. alcari says

    Hah, this USA-Election crap is guaranteed to provide high-quality entertainment for at least half a year for the rest of the world.

    Unfortunately, we all might get stuck with McCain for four years…

  9. Valhar2000 says

    I didn’t like the stuff about gm food being exposed to radiation: while the idea of informaing the public about it sounds good, the way they said smacks of anti-nuclear woo.

    Appart from that, funny as hell!

  10. Valhar2000 says

    Oh, and to those who will complain that this video unfairly casts conservatives as members of the religious right: if you are an old fashioned conservative, are in favour of fiscal restraint, and do not support the evangelical agenda, but you still have not run away from the GOP like the plague, you are an idiot, and you deserve all the scorn this video pours on you.

  11. gex says

    “The swipe at the FDA was unnecessary. It’s not like drugs are exactly being approved fast.”

    Far better to let Merck knowingly hide the bad tests for Vioxx and just let doctors and patients think the drugs are safer than they are. AND let live human testing reveal the risks that the company already knew about.

    :(

  12. Jason Dick says

    I have to agree that the swipe at GM/Irradiated food was annoying. Otherwise it was some good stuff.

  13. SC says

    OK, I’m persuaded.

    Ha! When I first read that, I thought you meant by negentropyeater’s Wall-Drug-style campaign.

  14. GKusnick says

    The GMO thing bothered me too. Unless you’re Euell Gibbons, all foods are genetically modified from their original wild form. The only real difference is how long it takes: generations of hybridization and backcrossing v. cutting and pasting the specific genes you want.

    I have a box of cereal in my pantry that, on one side of the box, condemns GMOs and swears that they’ll never be found in this product, while on the other side of the box it praises the ancient farmers who laboriously perfected the “natural” grains used in making the cereal. Rich in vitamins and irony.

  16. says

    Pretty stupid swipe at the EPA too–have we all forgotten it was created by a Republican congress under Nixon? It’s ignorant tribalist hatemongering like this that makes me glad I’m a Libertarian. But then we’re stuck with Bob Barr. :-( Guess I’ll have to write in Yao-Man or something.

  17. Eli says

    I’m not so concerned about the GM food. I just think the whole thing is dickish. Don’t get me wrong, I think that the Republican Party and most of its voters are flat out wrong a great deal of the time… but just because I identify as green/liberal doesn’t automatically make my ideas better. I’m getting pretty sick of seeing this sarcastic, self-righteous crap from my fellow liberals; we’ve got our share of screw-ups too. At least we can be a little more mature about it.

  18. says

    What a bunch of crap even a strawman could squeeze out :-(

    There are plenty of issues to debate. If we have to lie about the other position our own must not be very compelling :-(

  19. Azkyroth says

    Eli, how many of our screwups have killed thousands of people, devastated the economy, and kept being committed without ever being acknowledged as mistakes?

    Also, see here.

  23. Azkyroth says

    What a bunch of crap even a strawman could squeeze out :-(

    There are plenty of issues to debate. If we have to lie about the other position our own must not be very compelling :-(

    Your concern is noted.

  26. Corey says

    While I’m probably voting for Obama (very few candidates embrace my pro-free trade, pro-market, anti-religious, and pro-science beliefs, I guess I’ll settle for 2.5/4), I take serious issue with the anti-corporation sentiments (specifically Wal-Mart) in this video.

    Read this very carefully- Corporations are good. Corporations make it easier for us to consume more goods more cheaply. Imagine how expensive cars would be if small family companies had to produce them. Imagine how many new drugs would be made if small pharmaceutical companies produced drugs instead of the so called “big-Pharma” corporations. Food would cost far more if most of our food came from small family farms instead of large corporate farms.

    Thank God (figuratively, of course) for corporations. While they might not always be perfect (see: Enron, WorldCom, etc) our levels of consumption and production (and therefore our level of social welfare) would be ridiculously lower.

    And for you science lovers out there: think of all the advances in science and technology that have come from major corporations. They have far greater ability invest capital in research and design.

    We owe our incredible standards of living to capitalism and to scientific advances (often the product of capitalism).

    So, let go of your ideology and embrace capitalism and corporations. Or get in a time machine and go back to 1800. You might not live as long or as comfortably, but at least they will be fewer corporations.

  27. mds says

    I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate Sili for a well-placed umlaut. People should use those more often.

    <pedantry>Actually, it’s a diaeresis or trema, not an umlaut.</pedantry>

    Apart from that, I fully agree with your statement.

  28. MarshallDog says

    I took the swipe at GM food as being more about the fact that the current administration is against safety measures that may result in food being unfit for consumption… such as Bush being against testing for Mad Cow disease out of fear of false positives. I think people should be told what’s being done to their food, even if they’re fears aren’t really justified (that Mad Cow thing really makes me worried).

    I can’t wait to see the “I’m voting Democrat” response… actually, I can wait. I expect it to be painfully bad, because usually the conservative side just doesn’t know how to respond with humor or satire. Example: did anyone actually see “The Half Hour News Hour”? the conservative ‘response’ to The Daily Show? I doubt you did, as it was one of the worst rated shows in history. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how pissed off people get at this and what their response will be.

  30. David Marjanović, OM says

    Up to the 1950s or so, the diaeresis was used at every opportunity in English (…well, hm, at least by paleontologists): “reëvolve”, “coössify”, even “Troödon“. Ö in particular is always a speed bump for me because I always want to pronounce it the German way…

  31. MAJeff, OM says

    consuming tons of needless shit, and filling our landfills with it, is TEH AWESOMEZ!

  33. David Marjanović, OM says

    Bush being against testing for Mad Cow disease

    I almost read that as “Bush being against being tested for mad-cow disease”…

    (No, no. Booze plus willful ignorance are a much more parsimonious explanation for President MORON.)

  35. David Marjanović, OM says

    It seems we need a few Finns here. Or Estonians. Any volunteers?

  37. says

    “And for you science lovers out there: think of all the advances in science and technology that have come from major corporations. They have far greater ability invest capital in research and design.”

    You mean like at Bell Labs, where they were able to do as much as they did due to government subsidy, research grants and an officially sanctioned monopoly?

  38. says

    I want to vote democrat so that my taxes will go up! I really think that other people should have my money, especially if they are drug addicts and low-lifes. My family isn’t nearly as important as someone else’s. I want health care to be run by the government, that way everyone gets the same great health care regardless of how hard they work. I mean, social security is already doing such a good job being run by the government!

    I want everyone to be so afraid of nuclear power that instead of building a new safer more efficient nuclear reactor, we’ll instead pour more and more money into the old ones that we already have.

    I want stricter gun control laws. I want them to be so strict that virtually no one can get one. I mean, criminals follow laws right? Since we are on the topic of criminals, lets legalize all drugs. If we do that we can let out a ton of people from jail that don’t need to be there.

    I want to stop all wars everywhere. If other people are killing each other that’s none of our business. There aren’t evil people in the world, just greedy war mongering Americans. Everyone knows that the war in Iraq is just for oil. That’s why we guard their oil pipelines. We let them sell their oil and keep the money while we spend money rebuilding the country that is mostly blown up by their own people, because we want gas to be cheaper in the US. See how cheap gas is now? Most of the Iraqi’s are sensible people. They actually have stronger morals then we do. I mean seriously, who in the United States would have the strength to stand by their morals and strangle their own daughter because she talked to a soldier. We shouldn’t be butting in and telling them how to live!

    We should sit down and talk with foreign leaders who preach to their ass-backwards 5th century mentality mobs that they should have another holocaust to finally eradicate those vile snobby jews! Let’s also pay them more and more for their oil giving them even more power! It’s not like there are safe ways to drill for oil! Let’s not drill in the Gulf of Mexico for oil, that’s where the Chinese are drilling!

    See how stupid broad statements sound? This video was an over-generalization that was ignorant and naive. There isn’t one single party that has it right. I’ll probably end up voting for Obama, but not because he is a great candidate, but probably the lesser of two evils.

  39. says

    The video pretty much says it all but it doesn’t include why I’m voting Republican, Obama’s wife is intelligent, has a career and is opinionated. I want my candidate who has a born wealthy trophy wife and knows when to ditch a wife when she’s a burden.

  41. says

    Lee Daniel Crocker, you are right that a Republican signed the EPA into existence, but that was then. Now, the Republican party is doing its level best to destroy the EPA. Times change.

  42. keiths says

    Of course it’s overstated. It’s satire!

    The over-the-top sentiments and the deadpan delivery are what make it so funny.

    Did anyone else notice the statement at the end of the credits?

    “No Republicans were harmed in the making of this film.”

    The showing may be another story.

  43. Blaidd Drwg says

    Makes me wish I could vote republican too, but I have to shave every morning, and I don’t think I could stand to look at myself if I did.

  44. MAJeff, OM says

    Makes me wish I could vote republican too, but I have to shave every morning, and I don’t think I could stand to look at myself if I did.

    If you sell your soul, you don’t have a reflection (at least that’s what happened to Bart Simpson). So, it’s safe…but avoid aftershaves with alcohol.

  45. says

    Obviously it was a satire. Did you forget that the whole point of satires is to make a point by mocking what you don’t agree with? Even though they are jokes, they are still supposed to be making a point. I actually agree with half of the points that were made in this video, if not more. Unfortunately this isn’t a good satire because it makes the democrats look dumb instead of the intended targets, the republicans.

  46. GKusnick says

    Corey @#26: I’d be all in favor of free-market capitalism if such a thing actually existed. What we have now in the US certainly isn’t that; it’s bribe-your-lawmaker-into-cutting-you-some-slack capitalism (as the video rightly points out). In a truly free market, prices would reflect the complete life-cycle costs of products, from sustainable resource extraction to safe disposal, including environmental cleanup costs. Every non-sustainable corporate practice is a de facto government subsidy, since it requires government to step in eventually to halt the damage and/or clean up the mess, at taxpayer expense. Eliminate those subsidies, require good environmental stewardship, let prices reflect the true costs of sustainability, and I’ll have no problem embracing corporations and capitalism.

  47. negentropyeater says

    #18
    Lies ? This is a satirical view at the republicans , and I don’t see where are the lies.

    “I don’t want a cure for AIDS or breast cancer”

    “A classroom with thirty other children”

    “Women just can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies…”

    “Even if we’re separate we’ll still be called equal”

    “I need the government to tell me (who I can love)”

    “So long as the label says it’s food…”

    “Getting screwed by the utility company…”

    “I don’t feel that I deserve health insurance”

    “Texas needs more billionaires”

    “Sometimes the Constitution is one big inconvenient headache”

    “We should start as many wars as we need…Iraq…Iran”

  48. Rick R says

    #35- “It seems we need a few Finns here. Or Estonians. Any volunteers?”

    My partner is a Finn. Does that count?

    “Hyvää päivää, ystävä! Minä rakastan sinua!

    Maito on pahaa.

    Anteeksi, en puhu suomea.”

  50. SAL says

    “Even though they are jokes, they are still supposed to be making a point.”

    I agree. Especially considering it’s satire with a clear agenda. Unless of course they’re trying to simply rally the intended base and not trying to sway anyone.

  51. Carlie says

    I don’t mind swipes at irradiation. Irradiation is fine as a means to sanitize food; it is not ok as a means to shortcut health measures that should be in place to begin with. Irradiated milk for longer shelf life = good. Irradiated beef because shit got in it because line processing speeds are too fast and the USDA won’t institute maximum speeds like all other major beef producing countries = bad. There are reasons to be upset about radiation as a technique besides “oooo, nucular.”

  52. davidstvz says

    Don’t feel too smug. We could just as easily make something like that for Democrats.

    Personally… I’m going to “waste” my vote on a third party candidate.

  53. DrCogSci says

    Thought it was cute enough, for 5:00 a.m-have-to-turn-in-a-paper-working-all-night-about-to-go-to-sleep-oh-look-Pharyngula-has-something sort of thing… Anyone else notice the thanks to “Better Health Chiropractic?” Hmmmm, maybe it’s just my sleep deprivation.

  56. negentropyeater says

    Unless of course they’re trying to simply rally the intended base and not trying to sway anyone.

    Of course its intent is to rally the base. Of course it’s militant. Of course it’s full of exagerations and sarcasm.

    Has anybody ever seen any political satire that does not have any of these characteristics ?

  57. Mark says

    They should have had a WTC widow saying: “It’s been almost 7 years since 9-11-2001 and we have not been attacked on our home soil again. Those damn Republicans sure have let us down.”

    McCain… been there, done that. Obama… Didn’t Hitler run on a platform of “Change” also?

    I thought my choices were bad in 2004 but this year I’m just going to flip a coin, vote, and head for my bunker. See you in 2012.

  58. MAJeff, OM says

    Shorter Mark:

    I’m voting Republican because I want schools that teach blind acceptance of leadership, not some kind of critical thinking.

  59. wildcardjack says

    I’m upset with the swipe about hybrid cars.

    They do suck. If we’re going to shell out that kind of money we should be getting plug in’s with sterling cycle engines, not some overweight mishmash of gasoline drive and electric drive.

    Better off with a Civic.

  60. Spinoza says

    That “cookie?” at the end scared the SHIT out of me… was not looking at the screen…

  61. says

    Yeah, I get the purpose of the humor, but it’s really just the same sort of ignorant stuff we bash Republicans and Creationists for all the time, just from the other side.

    It opens with a swipe at Wal-Mart, who’s been focusing on opening cheap clinics in stores and offering $4 generic prescriptions to everyone, insurance or no.

  62. MAJeff, OM says

    It’s kind of funny. While it’s satire, the “I’m voting Republican because I need the government to tell me who I can love” is pretty damned accurate. The Republican Party has consistently supported legislation to make living life as a gay person more difficult. They’ve supported those who would discriminate over gay people; they’ve opposed even collecting statistics that report when we’re attacked because of who we are; they’ve opposed pretty much any and all recognition of our families as families, and any protection of them; they threw a tizzy fit when SCOTUS said they couldn’t arrest us for having sex; they adored AIDS under Reagan; they either exclude us or lie about us in sexuality and health education…….

  63. says

    @#57

    McCain… been there, done that. Obama… Didn’t Hitler run on a platform of “Change” also?

    Wow, using comparisons to Hitler this early in the game… The GOP must be getting worried.

    At least it serves as a slight break from the moral panic around Islam.

  64. Quiet Desperation says

    I hate to admit it, but I *like* the era of giant stores. If it’s anything less than a city block, don’t bother me. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy into the “let’s go back to mom and pop stores!” meme.

    Why? Because they have what I need every time. They will have the exact type of towels in the color I want, or they will have just the right set of cookware or odd accessory for my Wii. I don’t need friendly and “homey” shopping. I have my own home and freinds, thank you very much.

    Oh, and explain to the next batch of e. coli or salmonella sufferers about the evils of food irradiation. Every time I hear a story like that on the news, or when *I* get a bout of the squirts, I curse the ignorance of this dippy country.

    And saying its ever bad because it might cause someone to be lax elsewhere is nonsensical, especially when your given example is a case where they are being lax WITHOUT the irradiation. Der! Why can’t you pass the beef processing speed limits *AND* use irradiation?

  65. MAJeff, OM says

    Wow, using comparisons to Hitler this early in the game… The GOP must be getting worried.

    Oh, they’re starting to pull out the fun racist stuff. (1) (2)

    It’s only going to get uglier.

  66. Quiet Desperation says

    Rich in vitamins and irony.

    I’m totally stealing that line. :-)

    Sometimes the Constitution is one big inconvenient headache

    Well, it is. That does, however, indicate that it is working as intended. :-)

  67. Carlie says

    Der! Why can’t you pass the beef processing speed limits *AND* use irradiation?

    Absolutely you want to do both, it’s just not being discussed that way. Irradiation is being touted as the solution to the contamination problem, because it’s far too scary and expensive to look at processing protocols and speeds, crowding conditions on feedlots, etc.

  68. homostoicus says

    Some of it is pretty funny. Made me laugh in spots. But I kind of doubt it was intended as humor. I’m leaning toward McCain. Obama’s religious history and connections turn my stomach (so do McCain’s, for that matter). It will be the first time I will have voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Ford (hey, I was just 18).

  69. Rey Fox says

    “I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate Sili for a well-placed umlaut. People should use those more often.”

    No, they should just spell “no one” as two separate words.

    “Irradiated beef because shit got in it because line processing speeds are too fast and the USDA won’t institute maximum speeds like all other major beef producing countries = bad.”

    That’s the sort of thing I was hoping that the lady in the grocery store was going to say with regards to food labelling. As it was, that part was rather weak.

    “There isn’t one single party that has it right.”

    But there is one that has just about everything wrong.

  70. tony (not a vegan) says

    homostoicus @ 68:

    So why exactly will you vote for McCain. You noted your reason for rejecting Obama was his religious history & connections, and immediately thereafter state (in parentheses) that you feel the same about McCain.

    So give.

  71. tony (not a vegan) says

    Oh, and the video: I thought it pretty funny.

    I too thought the GM/irradiation lame and week.

    I *like* big-box stores – but wouldn’t mind *some* semblance of a main street (and a neighborhood that let me walk to it!)

    And I thought it got the corporate (lack of) governance thing exectly right. I’ve experienced this first hand in many board rooms – behind closed doors.

    Overall (*)(*)(*)(*)( )

    but I think many rethuglicans will be confused, since all of the reasons are prefectly sound – aren’t they? ;-)

  72. Azkyroth says

    Bravo. Everyone, listen to Corey. There’s absolutely no cause at all to be suspicious of what a group of people pooling their efforts for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible might do if left completely unchecked.

  74. McH says

    GMOs had it coming (food, not medical). I’m not much concerned about health and allergies, though the use of brute force evolution raises some issues on DNA code repair, gene splicing, and chaperone-mediated protein folding. The problem lies within the ecological aspect of the matter, when one company starts controlling seedlings of a major food crops, the use of pesticides and owns the rights to its genome. Also, there is no or very little genetic variation to such crops (GMO or not) making them more vulnerable to extirpations, not to mention possible ecological catastrophes on the entomology scale through outcrossing of genes from insecticide producing plants (think in favor of the bugs once!). Finally, can somebody tell me why we should pay another middle man for services we do not need (taking away money from the farmer) while there is more than enough food at ridiculously low prices available? This goes for artificial hormones and some pesticides as well (what, they are actually produced by the same company? The guys that gave us Agent Orange? Seriously..).

    Better in your kitchen than in mine.

  75. Bouncing Bosons says

    And for you science lovers out there: think of all the advances in science and technology that have come from major corporations. They have far greater ability invest capital in research and design.

    I laughed pretty hard at this one. Corporations don’t fund anything that won’t turn a profit within a decade or two. Everything we enjoy today is ultimately built on fundamental research done with public funds that corporations wouldn’t have touched with a 40 ft pole. (Hint: quantum mechanics is the foundation for the computer you’re reading this on, and, incidentally, that internet you’re using was built up from publicly-funded projects)

  76. says

    I’m leaning toward McCain. Obama’s religious history and connections turn my stomach (so do McCain’s, for that matter). It will be the first time I will have voted for a Republican presidential candidate since Ford (hey, I was just 18).

    Given you appear to consider the candidates equally contemptible, why on Earth would you choose the representative of the party that has trashed the planet for the last 8 years? Surely mere common sense, even of an entirely political kind, would dictate that the republicans be put out of power to ensure they clean up their act?

    I simply cannot grasp the mindset that would vote for anyone affiliated with such a party, even zillionaires have to breathe the air, drink the water and prefer not to be despised by the other 95% of the people on the planet.

    It’s a head scratcher.

  77. Lunacrous says

    So why exactly will you vote for McCain.

    Because he thinks war with Iran is a really really awesome idea?

  78. Dan L. says

    As for the Wal-Mart supporters:

    Wal-Mart has made a legacy of buying enough to make their suppliers dependent…

    …and then forcing them to cut benefits (health-care, wages, etc.) to lower their prices for the next Wal-Mart bid. Big corporations can do research with a little more breathing room, but more often they suck in more money and bury the competition. Capitalism works better when the players are close to the same size and “competition” actually means something.

    And profit motives will not build safer nuclear reactors, whoever tried to imply that. Safe nuclear reactors don’t get to sell electricity for more money than unsafe ones do. This is one of the situations where regulation actually counts for something.

  79. Kseniya says

    Corey:

    (GiantRetailOutlet) != (GiantManufacturer)

    I agree that giants need a place to shop, too, but Wal-Mart has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO with the development and production of either cars or pharmaceuticals.

    Your point was not entirely without merit, however. If we all had to make our own cars, life would be different. Yep.   ;-)

  80. says

    Yes, corporate funding into science has done some good. No-one would deny that. But that doesn’t mean that corporations and capitalism are the only good tool for scientific advancement. Corporate funding works on commercial viability, not on human necessity. Institutions like universities still have a place in research, but I fear as corporate interests become more and more important to the development of new technology that some of the more noble but impractical uses of discovery will decline.

    Would that experiment on the bacteria that has gone on for more than 2 decades and produced nothing of commercial interest still gone ahead if the field of science was purely funded by corporate interest? I would say no.

  81. says

    This video was lame and arrogant. Insulting generalizations are rarely funny and often turn away swing-voters who were thinking of switching teams.

  82. says

    Insulting generalizations are rarely funny and often turn away swing-voters who were thinking of switching teams.

    It is a continued source of some amazement that anyone could possibly vote for a political party that has “accomplished” what the republicans have in the last 8 years. Yet, a little over 40% still want to vote for McCain. Astounding.

  83. CJO says

    So, let go of your ideology and embrace capitalism and corporations.

    It’s a serious error to conflate capitalism per se with corporations and the way they operate in the post-WWII economy. The point was made well above by GKusnick in #46, but it bears repeating. Large corporations as they are currently run are instruments for deflecting or suppressing market forces while forcing governments and consumers to take on all sorts of associated costs the CFOs conveniently leave off the books. Costs always get paid. The purchase price of food, for instance, in your naive examples, is only the beginning of a calculation of the true costs of relying on agribusiness as its currently managed for our sustenance versus local agriculture.

    Of course, it doesn’t have to be either or. Which is why I consider the blindingly ignorant economic view you advise to be much more ideological than any balanced view of the matter. If we treated corporations more like a technology and less like quasi-legal check-kiting schemes for the already super-rich, we might be able to allow something approaching an actual free market to decide when their activities were really in the best interests of us all.

  84. says

    Anti-abortionists don’t have their opinions because they want to oppress women, they have that opinion because abortion involves killing foetuses. When liberals frame (sorry) abortion as being about women controlling their own bodies they shoot themselves in the foot because anti-abortionists think they’re simply ignoring the most important part of the whole debate – and they are.

    The real reason abortion is considered acceptable (though not good) by many (including myself) is that they judge foetuses as not sentient enough for their interests to outweigh those of the mother (and the rest of the adults who would be impacted by the birth of the child).

    It’s a ridiculous straw man to suggest that people who are uncomfortable about killing foetuses are only saying that because they want to oppress women.

  85. Corey says

    @ #72, Azkyroth

    “Bravo. Everyone, listen to Corey. There’s absolutely no cause at all to be suspicious of what a group of people pooling their efforts for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible might do if left completely unchecked.”

    Notice how I said “not all corporations are perfect (see: Enron, WorldCom, etc).”

    Outcomes from market forces are not always perfect. However, they are far more efficient than anything the public sector can provide. Sometimes the public sector can fund good programs (like when they fund scientific research. I love that kind of stuff). Most of the time it’s crap like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere, or subsidies for the sugar industry. I agree that these subsidies are ridiculous, and should be done away with.

    I direct you fellow skeptics to “The Myth of the Rational Voter” by Bryan Caplan for a introduction to why the public sector is inefficient, as well as a brief intro to why economists think the way they do.

    I read this blog (and the intelligent posters PZ attracts) because I agree with the opinions posted here. However, skepticism of the free market stems from a lack of economic education in the U.S., just as the antipathy directed toward science in this country stems from poor science education and religious indoctrination that is far too prevalent here in these United States.

  86. Rey Fox says

    “I simply cannot grasp the mindset that would vote for anyone affiliated with such a party, even zillionaires have to breathe the air, drink the water and prefer not to be despised by the other 95% of the people on the planet.”

    I don’t understand the people who show up on here and announce their intentions of voting for McBush just because Obama is too young or too lawyer-y or his (former) pastor said some crazy things (along with some uncomfortable truths). Puh-LEASE.

  87. resident_alien says

    It’s a ridiculous straw man to suggest that people who are uncomfortable about killing foetuses are only saying that because they want to oppress women.

    Posted by: Brendon Brewer | June 13, 2008 2:37 AM

    Not at all,Brendon.Anti-choicers love to rhapsodize about “Teh poo-oor pwecious baybeez”,but if they really wanted to prevent/reduce abortions,they would support contraception use and access to contraception,affordability and so on.Also,what happens after the baby is born?They like to pretend that for every baby born,two mature,solvent,heterosexual parents ready and willing to provide (emotionally,financally,etc.)will materialize out of thin air.None of their policies would,if implemented,prevent abortion.They would result in more abortions,performed illegally and under dangerous conditions.You are right,however,in that they would never admit that to themselves.

  88. themadlolscientist says

    Mostly predictable and too true to be funny, but “Cupcake” played by “Angel Food”? That acting credit alone is worth the price of admission.

    p.s. Speaking of acting: Went with friends to see Indiana Jones tonight. Great fun. If we had ROFLd any louder, I wouldn’t have been surprised if the management had us thrown out.

  89. Walton says

    I agree strongly with Brendon Brewer at #84.

    In the end, there is only one operative question on the subject of abortion: at which point in pregnancy does a fetus become a human life? If one believes that life begins at conception, then abortion, for any reason other than saving the life of the mother, is morally indefensible and constitutes homicide.

    Being pro-life is not about “oppressing women” or “denying women control over their own bodies”. Rather, it’s about the belief that a fetus is a human life separate from the mother, and that a mother does not have the right to kill it at will. This does throw up some difficult moral dilemmas – for instance, where a child is conceived as a result of rape – but in essence, it’s about the sanctity of human life. The only important question is whether a fetus is actually a human life.

    So no pro-lifer is arguing that “women can’t be trusted with control over their own bodies”. That’s an absurd straw man argument, and wilfully distorts one’s opponents’ values and beliefs. It’s no more intellectually honest than if I were to say “vote Democrat to surrender to the terrorists!”

  90. Brian says

    “Irradiated beef because shit got in it because line processing speeds are too fast and the USDA won’t institute maximum speeds like all other major beef producing countries = bad.”

    Um… why? The USDA’s purpose is to assure that food is safe. If irradiation is enough to take care of whatever pathogens that get into beef, thereby making the food safe, I don’t understand why the line speed will be an issue. If a company is making safe food, I don’t understand why it’s the government’s business how fast they do it, unless that’s endangering their workers. I don’t really have a dog in this fight, as I’m a vegetarian. But an odd one who really doesn’t care what’s in my food as long as it’s not harmful and tastes fine.

  91. negentropyeater says

    For those who defend Walmart (corey, quiet desp..), (as this video is not atacking capitalism per se, but more specifically this monster corporation that is Walmart) :

    – Walmart underpays most of its workers
    (a cashier earns 8$/hr, that’s a meager 16,000$ /year, with the current cost of living, that’s not far from the poverty line…)
    – Walmart completely squeezes most of its suppliers, who would have much preferred if it had not existed, but they have no choice. Or they don’t sell and go bankrupt, or they do and sell at 0 profit.
    – One doesn’t need a PhD in economics to see the structural damage that Walmart has caused on most of the territory of the USA, compared with Europe. By obliging Americans to use their cars to go shopping (do they have any choice left), this has increased drastically their structural dependency on oil.
    – some people prefer shopping in those impersonal Walmarts, fine, but do others who prefer a style of shopping like I can enjoy in most cities in Europe still have a choice ?

    And all of this for what ? Lower prices and more consumption ? You mean that malady that people have inherited from the baby boomers that is hyperconsumerism at credit, and that is costing the ruin of the planet ?

    I see absolutely nothing good that has come from Walmart, just misery and desolation, and a delusion of relative happiness which is rapidly fading away, at the time when they are anouncing record profits.

    We’ll see what comes out of this, it’s just a question of how long the delusion still holds.

  92. Anders says

    It is funny to notice that people don’t seem to catch that the comment is about LABELING of GMO and irradiated foods.

    Yeah, don’t tell people what they get. They can’t be trusted with that information. *sigh*

  93. says

    >>. The only important question is whether a fetus is actually a human life.<< I disagree. The foetus is obviously a human life. The important question (IMO) is how much they can experience and for foetuses I cannot see why they deserve more consideration than, say, dogs. There aren't many people protesting the euthanasing of stray dogs at the pound.

  94. clinteas says

    Attention-seeking Walton babbled:

    //This does throw up some difficult moral dilemmas – for instance, where a child is conceived as a result of rape – but in essence, it’s about the sanctity of human life.//

    Walton,apart from the ironic fact that you are writing your posts on a blog called “Pharyngula”,all I can really say is that Im getting tired of you throwing out some stupid coulteresque comment in the hope that the commenters here will pay you some attention and give you a lil love.
    Your comment above consists merely of some rehashed pro-life nonsense that you probably dont even believe in yourself.

    //Rather, it’s about the belief that a fetus is a human life separate from the mother, and that a mother does not have the right to kill it at will//

    The only truth in the above is the word “belief”,because without “belief” in this whole sanctity BS noone could be so deluded as to actually stand for this pro-life crap,and if your “belief” is strong enough,it might just put that Molotov cocktail in your hand one day tooin front of that abortion clinic,you know.
    And I dont even know what to say to the “sanctity of life” or “kill it at will” bullshit,other than call it what it is,BS !!

  95. Logicel says

    Yes, GKusnick’s Rich in vitamins and irony is tremendously theft-worthy. Both of his comments (14 & 46, esp 46 are noteworthy), but Ed Darrel’s #54 wins this thread so far.

  96. Carlie says

    When liberals frame (sorry) abortion as being about women controlling their own bodies they shoot themselves in the foot because anti-abortionists think they’re simply ignoring the most important part of the whole debate – and they are.

    See, the pro-choice people think that the anti-abortionists are ignoring the most important part – the woman whose entire life is going to be affected by that debate. They have this crazy idea that a human adult actually IS more important and has more rights than a blastocyst. And what resident_alien said: if they really care about all life, then why do those same people always vote and lobby against safe contraceptives and health care for children?

    I don’t understand why the line speed will be an issue.

    Endangering the workers is the other part of it – butchering isn’t automated, so those are people swinging cleavers around that fast. Then accidents happen. Bad ones.

  98. Fernando Magyar says

    Corey Re# 26,

    We owe our incredible standards of living to capitalism and to scientific advances (often the product of capitalism).

    Two words: Fractal Wrongness: The state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution.

    Our incredible standards of living?!! Surely you jest. Look around you and open your eyes, you must live in a very tiny sheltered enclave. BTW, sustainable ecologically stable societies are anathema to the mantra of, “He who has the most toys (cars, planes, guns, electronic gadgets etc…) wins” If that is your definition of incredible standard of living, then maybe.
    Mine includes things like happiness, high quality of education, health care for all, community and sustainability.

    To steal a quote from a poster over at theoildrum.com,”Humans are not smarter than yeast”.

    Capitalism and Corporatism are both ideologies that by definition fail the basic test of promoting human rights. More importantly they are based upon the flawed premise of continual sustainable economic growth.

    http://www.n55.dk/MANUALS/DISCUSSIONS/N55_TEXTS/AB_ideologies.html

    Ideologies and religions

    Ideologies and religions are systems of thought that shape and decide the way persons and groups of persons think and act.
    Ideologies and religions don’t necessarily first and foremost respect conditions for description, and hereby logical relations and facts, but are also often the expression of subjective opinions, social conventions and habitual conceptions. Because subjective opinions, social conventions and habitual conceptions are not necessarily in compliance with conditions for description, religious and ideological assertions are often a mixture of right assertions and wrong assertions.
    This is a fundamental problem that is shared by for example ideologies like representative democracy, anarchism, neo-liberalism, communism, capitalism, nazism, and religions like christianity, hinduism, judaism, islam, etc.
    Experience tells us that religions and ideologies usually don’t first and foremost aim to respect conditions for description and hereby the logical relation between persons and persons’ rights.
    Persons might have personal reasons to believe in ideologies or religions, but ideologies and religions that don’t first and foremost aim to respect persons’ rights, should never be used as the basis of political action, because the fundamental purpose of politics is to protect the rights of persons.
    Instead of using ideologies and religions as the basis of political action, persons ought to use conditions for description as the basis of politics and thereby first and foremost try to respect persons’ rights.

    Re tsig #55,

    Corporations are made of people.

    So is the Catholic church.

  99. sailor says

    “It’s a ridiculous straw man to suggest that people who are uncomfortable about killing foetuses are only saying that because they want to oppress women.”

    No Brendon, clearly anti-abortion is about the sanctity of life, so why why are most anti-abortionists virulently pro capital punishment?

  100. True Bob says

    /swish/
    Hello sailor!
    /swish/

    Good point. Y’all may not be aware of this, but the preznits have made declarations of “sanctity of human life day”, usually in January, IIRC. And how is that focus? A little blurry, if you ask me – it’s all about the unborn babies – nothing about real people in the real world, nothing anti-death penalty, just about fawning over those clumps of cells. Sanctity my ass.

  101. spurge says

    Don’t forget they also fight against birth control and the HPV vaccine.

    What part of letting Woman die of preventable cervical cancer is pro-life?

  102. Lilly de Lure says

    sailor said:

    No Brendon, clearly anti-abortion is about the sanctity of life, so why why are most anti-abortionists virulently pro capital punishment?

    Not to mention that they also tend to be pro-war despite the fact that if there was ever a definition of “senseless waste of human life” the disaster that is Iraq would surely qualify.

  103. says

    @#91

    Care to show any of your work for suppliers hating Wal-Mart? Most I know are happy for the extra volume, and those that don’t want to deal don’t have to. I’d love to see some citations for the zero profit mark, because it seems like that’s equally damaging, and suppliers would be falling off the map constantly. Given that those suppliers sell the same merchandise to everyone else… it seems like it’d be easier to scale back and go to some of the stores that give them untold profits.

    $8 an hour for a job that requires no skills, no training, and no education? What you neglect to mention is that Wal-Mart promotes nearly 85% of it’s managers and support staff from that same pool. So starting at the bottom rung is a step on the road. And the same employees stick around, since the stores enjoy around an 80-90% retention rate, so some one must like it. Tack on the fact that the payment for a cashier is about $1-2 more than its direct competitors and jobs at places like fast food, gas stations, or service industry jobs that hire employees with the same amount of skills.

    http://finance.google.com/finance?morenews=10&rating=1&q=NYSE:WMT

    Check out the number of “positive” stories versus negative from the Google finance reader. Like the fact that the store saves each American consumer some $2500 a year, regardless if they shop their or not (through general supply chain changes and focusing on product changes… like more efficient packaging, CFL bulbs, etc).

    If you can’t find anything good coming out of Wal-Mart, it’s because you’ve decided to stick your fingers in your ears and take a path of ignorance like the common creationist.

    I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it certainly isn’t the evil most people portray it to be.

  104. Disciple of "Bob" says

    If you really believe that democrats vs. republicans REALLY is a question of SMART, COOL ETHICAL “US” versus DUMB OLD STUPID EVIL “THEM”, then you *will* get the government you deserve.

  106. Brian Greer says

    Ultimately, the point with the genetically modified food is that it should be labeled as such. Not pretend as if it is the same. The point with the irradiated food is that it should be labeled as such. Stop pretending that it isn’t happening. If the customers do not care, why the fear? Put the label on and even put another on explaining how it is good for them, if you really want to.

    The point with the FDA is that so many drugs are approved based entirely on studies funded and hand-picked by the manufacturer. If GM and Ford got to pick their safety inspectors, wouldn’t they end up with the best ratings every single year? What if your home builder inspects the house you are about to buy? Is he likely to find and inform you of every fault possible?

    The ultimate point is that self-regulation by industry is a failed concept. When their self-regulation bumps up against major corporate strategies, they are prepared to lie and deceive to push it through. It happens time and again in various industries. They will also use their lobbying forces to stop the good companies from advertising that they are doing things a better way. They don’t actually want the “free market” that they pretend to want. A “free market” would allow any beef company to test 100% of their herd for mad cow and advertise it as such, but the government will not let that happen. A “free market” would let milk from non-BGH cows be advertised as such, without forcing some disclaimer onto it. These corporations are out of control from the eyes of true individuals and have seized the power of the government.

  107. Aquaria says

    Wow.

    The anti-abortion crowd really doesn’t get a few things, like how making abortion illegal will not stop abortions. It will only add to the death toll by killing the unborn child and the mother. Like Gerri Santoro, who died from an illegal abortion in the 60s, and left behind young children. I know Gerri Santoro’s daughter, and, believe me, she wishes her mother had been around to raise her, rather than feeling so desperate that she was willing to risk an illegal abortion. So which is it, anti-abortion crowd:

    -1 life (and only a potential life at that, not an actual one), or -2 (one of them an actual life, not potential)? How is it not hating women to put them at risk for death?

    Oh yeah–because, in the end, what you will say is, “She shoulda kept her legs closed.” It’s what every abortion argument ends up being, if you dig deeply enough.

    So, in the end, it IS about women, about hating them, about hating that they are sexual beings.

    Anyone who says otherwise is a LIAR.

  108. Aquaria says

    Oh, and for those of you who can stomach it, here’s a look at what an illegal abortion can look like: Gerri Santoro

    Anyone who thinks another human being deserves that is a sick fuck.

  109. Walton says

    Aquaria at #107: I’m sorry I seem to have touched a raw nerve, but I feel obliged to respond.

    Oh yeah–because, in the end, what you will say is, “She shoulda kept her legs closed.” It’s what every abortion argument ends up being, if you dig deeply enough. So, in the end, it IS about women, about hating them, about hating that they are sexual beings. – I can’t speak for all pro-lifers, but I can say unequivocally that this does not represent my view. Hence why, unlike some, I would not allow abortion on easier terms in cases of rape.

    Ultimately, as far as I’m concerned, a fetus (as opposed to a blastocyst or an embryo) is a human being. A fetus in the later stages of pregnancy has a brain stem and brain activity, and human physical features. I just don’t see how one can draw a logical moral distinction between a developed fetus and a living baby (other than its capacity for independent survival – in which case, does a terminally ill person who cannot survive independently cease to be a human being?) That is why I am against abortion – and for no other reason.

    I certainly do not oppose abortion on the grounds of some sort of moral disapproval towards unwed mothers, and I find the suggestion absurd.

  110. True Bob says

    Walton, if abortions are not available (in any form), what would you plan for all the unwanted children? The parents get to keep it, unless they leave it in a dumpster or a river. What do you do with the babies, W? There will be many many, per anti-aborionist literature, correct? How well do we move children out of orphanages? And how many new babies will end up there?

    I am truly interested in how far ahead you’ve thought about this, Walton, because I don’t believe most anti-abortionists do. And also, what do you think about capital punishment? (just a baselining question).

  111. spurge says

    I notice one person you totally fail to mention when you talk about “babies”.

    The mother you would force into carrying it to term.

    What punishment exactly do you propose for Women who get abortions Walton?

    Will you provide the money necessary to take care of the kid for their whole life?

    Do you care what happens to the kid after they are born?

    Do you care about the Mother>

    Do you care about the other kids in the family?

    I doubt it.

    This is the part where you tell us all she should have kept her legs closed.

  112. SC says

    Fernando Magyar @ #98,

    I appreciate your post, but object to the inclusion of anarchism in the analysis from which you quoted. Only someone unfamiliar with anarchism’s history as a human rights movement (anarchists continue to be both among the most vocal champions of human rights and at the same time the most outspoken critics of legalistic and state-based approaches to rights that alienate political power from individuals) could suggest that it is an “ideology” in the sense described. Anarchism begins and ends with the “rights of persons.” It is the only philosophy with grounded individual rights at its core.

    http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/1905.eng.html

  113. says

    Ultimately, as far as I’m concerned, a fetus (as opposed to a blastocyst or an embryo) is a human being. A fetus in the later stages of pregnancy has a brain stem and brain activity, and human physical features.

    So what you are saying is that you are only against abortion after about the 10th week of pregnancy? The only justification that you give for not having an abortion is because it is undeniably a human being once it has become a fetus. It doesn’t start out as a fetus. At what point is it immoral? If I wear a condom I am stopping what is undeniably a future baby’s life. I don’t have the right to choose the future of all my unborn babies’ lives. What if I don’t have sex at all? If I choose to not have sex at all I am essentially “killing” all of my future children, and their children and their children and quite possibly (depending on how long humanity is around) I’m “killing” billions and billions of people. If you aren’t out right now trying to make babies with every person you can then you are immoral and “killing” more people than Hitler.

  114. SC says

    Here are a few quotes from Wendy Brown (not an anarchist, as far as I know, but critical of narrow, legalistic visions of rights) on the issue of abortion and women’s rights – from a debate with Kenneth Baynes:

    “[G]iven the historical privatization of gender and reproduction, how has the framing of the abortion issue on terms of privacy rights contributed to the invisibility of women’s economic and social subordination through childbearing in an inegalitarian sexual and reproductive order? How can the full implications of a woman’s lack of reproductive freedom in a gendered political economy be featured in a formulation that reduces reproduction, and in particular, unwanted pregnancy, to a matter of privacy, and not even to a matter of equality, liberty, bodily integrity, or individuality?” (476).

    “In some ways, Baynes could not have picked a better example of how depoliticization in the Marxist sense works: grant women formal legal equality, and grant them limited abortion rights on the basis of privacy, and watch the analytic disappearance of the social powers constitutive of women’s unfree and unequal condition as reproductive workers. Instead, watch the public debate for decades over whether or not a fetus is a person” (476).

    “Baynes’s more general misrepresentation of my argument as one that rejects rights. For those who believe that access to abortion is an essential component of women’s emancipation from the historically subordinating powers of gender, the question is not whether women should have rights but what kinds of rights will procure emancipation from those powers rather than reinscribe them (e.g., as matters of privacy) or, rather than continue to regulate women through them (e.g., by installing the state, the economy, and the medical establishment as brokers of women’s access to abortion as Roe v. Wade and subsequent abortion rulings have done)” (476-7).

    “What kinds of rights to freedom and equality would figure all humans as appropriately cultivating some measure of power and control over their sexual and reproductive activities (without the conceit of absolute sovereignty that Foucault warns against) rather than specifying this power and control according to historically gendered matrices? More generically, what kinds of rights bring into view, and potentially into public discourse, inequalities and subordination produced by social powers? And what kind keep this production process ideologically naturalized and discursively buried?” (477)

    [2000. “Revaluing Critique: A Response to Kenneth Baynes.” Political Theory 28 (4): 469-479.]

  115. Aquaria says

    Ultimately, as far as I’m concerned, a fetus (as opposed to a blastocyst or an embryo) is a human being. A fetus in the later stages of pregnancy has a brain stem and brain activity, and human physical features. I just don’t see how one can draw a logical moral distinction between a developed fetus and a living baby (other than its capacity for independent survival – in which case, does a terminally ill person who cannot survive independently cease to be a human being?) That is why I am against abortion – and for no other reason.

    Do you draw a distinction between cancer cells and a human being? They’re living human life, too. But of course you don’t.

    You still haven’t answered why it’s okay to put BOTH mother and child at risk by making abortion illegal.

    hen you make abortion illegal, YOU DO NOT SAVE THE UNBORN. YOU ONLY END UP KILLING WOMEN WITH THEM! Is that what you want? Because that is what will happen.

    You are only kidding yourself if you think it would be otherwise. And you’re still a sick fuck for only caring about the poor precious baby instead of the living, breathing mother who carries that POTENTIAL life. Or the people who love her–friends and family.

    Did you even look at the picture of Gerri Santoro I provided? Did you? Did you ever get a letter from her daughter thanking you for being one of the few people who ever asked publicly what Gerri’s death like for her mother, her children, her siblings, her friends? I did.

    Did you ever have a mother who was called to an emergency room because a woman had been dropped off at the curb of a hospital by a taxi, literally dumped on the sidewalk and was bleeding to death, no purse, no identification, only a ticket stub in her pocket for a plane trip to Mexico? My mother held onto that woman’s hands as she bled to death. No one ever claimed her. The state buried her in an unmarked grave, and no one has sought to name her to this day.

    That is what it was like in the “good old days” for women who didn’t have safe, legal abortion available to them. And yet all you care about is the unborn, not for the women who will die with them. You don’t value their lives at all–only with potential lives.

    There aren’t enough words to convey my contempt for you.

  116. Colugo says

    Two observations:

    1) The left of center is stuck with the anti-GMO, anti-irradiated food mentality (and related biotech-phobic baggage) for the foreseeable future just like the right is stuck with Christian fundamentalists.

    2) Given the anti-Walmart thrust (Walmart has become a symbol, like the SUV), it’s a good thing that Hillary Clinton is not the nominee.

  117. Colugo says

    The video deserves a post on Stuff White People Like. It ticks off the SWPL buzzwords (corporations, GMOs…) and like much of the SWPL list, it’s ultimately self-congratulatory.

  118. says

    So, let go of your ideology and embrace capitalism and corporations. Or get in a time machine and go back to 1800. You might not live as long or as comfortably, but at least they will be fewer corporations.

    Posted by: Corey | June 12, 2008 9:18 PM

    Dude, unless this is (on the outside chance) sarcasm, you are so fucking delusional you probably think your crap smells like roses. And, no, I’m not going to debate you, your brain has rotted to the core and it would be pointless.

    For others, start with Gilded Age and the governmental responses to that kind of capitalism. If you read it fairly, you can see that regulated capitalism that prevents oligopolies and monopolies and the exploitation of labor while allowing fair and reasonable profits provides the strongest and best economy all around.

    But it requires a LOT of reading and being able to sort out the “true believers” from the pragmatists.

  119. AAB says

    I am democrat. However I don’t like the video. It divides issues as black and white. Only the other side present issues this way …

  121. says

    Outcomes from market forces are not always perfect. However, they are far more efficient than anything the public sector can provide. Sometimes the public sector can fund good programs (like when they fund scientific research. I love that kind of stuff). Most of the time it’s crap like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere, or subsidies for the sugar industry. I agree that these subsidies are ridiculous, and should be done away with.

    Okay. It wasn’t parody. But see how he completely ignores the faults of capitalism? Like it’s some holy grail of goodness?

    That’s how you can tell the “True Believer.” He has engaged in the psychological phenomenon of “splitting” and can only see one side. For him, it’s the “all good” side. Any flaws are due to “rogue” companies like Enron or WorldCom.

    Never mind that price fixing and other such things go on all the time. Even St. Adam Smith, the most misquoted hero of the Libertarians, warned that businessmen would conspire to fix profits at the expense of consumers.

    If that’s not good enough, read history. We can see the huge flaws of unregulated capitalism in our gilded age. We can see them in jolly-old industrial-revolution England. We can see them in slave-labor factories (owned by US and Multi-National firms) all over the second and third worlds TO THIS DAY.

    How about Hong Kong? The least regulated economy in the world is, literally, dominated by two vertically and horizontally integrated monopolies. They’re so powerful that they control every aspect of the economy. You try to compete, you can’t get gas for your trucks, you can’t hire labor to unload them or work in your store while you are, for your duration in the market, subject to anti-competitive price fixing and other shenanigans.

    It’s so bad that Hong Kong’s economy, and the inevitable monopolies/oligopolies, with their deleterious consequences, that arise from unregulated free-market capitalism, are used in business studies in business, economics and political science graduate programs.

    Not that I’d expect a True Believer who sucks at the tits of the Heritage Foundation to understand. But the evidence is there.

    As for me, I’m a great believer in regulated capitalism. Mostly because I come from a capitalist family. We know, from both sides of the issue, what happens without regulation.

    Anyway, got to get back to work. An accountant’s life is never dull. :)

  122. negentropyeater says

    #103

    It’s unbelievable how some people can be so hooked onto their delusions, it’s the same thing as with religion, isn’t it… Walmart is good for you !

    First, I used to make deals with Walmart. I worked as VP for a very large consumer electronics multinational and I know the kind of margins that were left for us, suppliers. And we were big guys, I mean almost the same size as Walmart. Just imagine for small guys. Happy ? Well, we had no choice, we needed the volume, they represented about 30-40% of the US market, so giving up was giving up on market share, which was unthinkable. But happy, no way.
    And in some other markets, their dominant position is even worse. Walmart is an absolute disaster from a competitive standpoint. How can you even ignore it ?

    Second you claim that they have caused a savings of 2500$ per capita, can you even think about what that means ?
    Walmart’s revenue is roughly $350 billion, that savings represents $750 billion, doesn’t that sound a bit ridiculous to you ? And from Packaging and light bulbs ? Think please ? If any savings, it can only come from squeezing margins from suppliers and cost effectiveness, ie lower salaries for the work force, wherelse ?

    Look, the central problem with Walmart is about the structural defficiency it creates, what I tried to explain in my post #91, which you haven’t addressed :
    – increased American depency on oil by eliminating commerce of proximity
    – increased American addiction for hyperconsumerism on credit

  123. David Marjanović, OM says

    Now that I’ve watched the video (in the university, where YouTube always works… o tempora, o mores…), I’m flabbergasted that anyone (like comment 68) didn’t get the sarcasm.

    Comment 38 did get the sarcasm, but needs a bit of edjumacation anyway:

    See how stupid broad statements sound? This video was an over-generalization that was ignorant and naive.

    Ah, really? Show us.

    I actually agree with half of the points that were made in this video, if not more.

    That’s satire, too. Right?

    ———————

    They should have had a WTC widow saying: “It’s been almost 7 years since 9-11-2001 and we have not been attacked on our home soil again. Those damn Republicans sure have let us down.”

    1) What makes you think that another terrorist assault would have happened under a Democratic government?
    2) What makes you think a Democratic president would have ignored the warnings lying on his desk since July 2001?
    3) What makes you think a terrorist assault by a gang is an act of war like Pearl Harbor?

    ————–

    No, they should just spell “no one” as two separate words.

    Why, when “anyone” and “nobody” are single words (to the extent that “nobody” and “body” don’t even rhyme)? Looks like a rather desperate emergency solution.

    How difficult can it be to recognize “noone” when it’s written? Would people really pronounce it “noon”?

    (…Well, of course, the real problem lies elsewhere entirely. Why doesn’t one begin with w?)

    ————–

    I direct you fellow skeptics to “The Myth of the Rational Voter” by Bryan Caplan for a introduction to why the public sector is inefficient, as well as a brief intro to why economists think the way they do.

    And corporation bosses are always rational?

    Capitalism is great, as long as it is constantly protected from itself. When left to its own, monopolies and cartels result. Competition can only be kept alive by public intervention. The greatest force for capitalism in the world is the EU competition commissioner.

    Walmart underpays most of its workers
    (a cashier earns 8$/hr, that’s a meager 16,000$ /year, with the current cost of living, that’s not far from the poverty line…)

    Just FYI, the minimum wage in most of the First World is around 10 $/h.

    If you can’t find anything good coming out of Wal-Mart, it’s because you’ve decided to stick your fingers in your ears and take a path of ignorance like the common creationist.

    I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it certainly isn’t the evil most people portray it to be.

    Look, it’s not like XXL supermarkets didn’t exist elsewhere, but, in the USA, WalMart has an insane monopoly. Can you really believe that’s healthy?

    ————–

    On a tangent, about competition and food safety.
    What should the government do if a producer wants to provide food, and show consumers documentation proving certain safety aspects?
    Stop that f***er from making everyone else look bad, tnhat’s what. There’s your f***ing competition.
    http://blogs.consumerreports.org/safety/2008/06/mad-cow-usda.html

    :-o :-O :-o :-O :-o :-O :-o

    What’s wrong with you people? Why didn’t you vote out all politicians who didn’t immediately make testing mandatory? Why did a single of your politicians believe they could get away with not immediately passing such laws?

    Something is rotten in the States of America.

    —————–

    If you really believe that democrats vs. republicans REALLY is a question of SMART, COOL ETHICAL “US” versus DUMB OLD STUPID EVIL “THEM”, then you *will* get the government you deserve.

    Have you ever encountered the term “lesser evil”? It has made appearances even in this thread.

  124. Walton says

    I’ve had a flood of responses, and can answer only a few immediately.

    Spurge at #111: What punishment exactly do you propose for Women who get abortions Walton? – None whatsoever. It should be the performance of the abortion which is criminalised.

    Will you provide the money necessary to take care of the kid for their whole life? Do you care what happens to the kid after they are born? Do you care about the Mother? Do you care about the other kids in the family? – All of these are persuasive social arguments in favour of abortion, and I take your point. But ultimately, when one accepts that a fetus is a human being, none of these is a sufficient reason for killing it. Would you kill a living, newborn baby because its mother cannot take care of it; because it will be expensive to raise; because the other kids in the family will suffer as a result of its life? Personally, I could not.

    Eric at #113: So what you are saying is that you are only against abortion after about the 10th week of pregnancy? The only justification that you give for not having an abortion is because it is undeniably a human being once it has become a fetus. It doesn’t start out as a fetus. At what point is it immoral? – I think you’ve misread me to some extent. A mere fertilised group of cells, at the beginning of a pregnancy, is self-evidently not an independent human life; hence why I have no problem with the “morning after” pill (or indeed with contraception or celibacy), and I am not going to assert that “life begins at conception”. But once it becomes a fetus, with a brain stem and brain activity, then the moral dilemma begins. The fact is that, on the medical evidence, we simply do not and cannot know at what point a fetus becomes an independent human being, with feelings, consciousness and emotions. And I would assert, on that basis, that it must be treated as a human life, and given the same value that we would assign to a newborn baby.

    Let’s look at it this way. Some of the pro-abortion lobby defend late-term and partial-birth abortions – which are morally equivalent to infanticide, IMO. How can one assert that a fetus a couple of days before birth, or in the process of birth, is any less of a valuable human life than a baby one day after birth? You may very well point out, and correctly, that not all pro-choicers endorse late-term or partial-birth abortion, and many are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion after 24 weeks. But where do we draw the line? Using “viability” – the potential to survive independently – is an absurd argument; persons requiring life support cannot survive independently, but does that deprive them of their humanity?

    Aquaria at #115: I’m sorry that I’ve provoked your contempt, but I cannot lie about my moral beliefs, and I am not going to pretend that I think abortion is OK. You are horrified, and rightly so, at the tragedy of women dying as a result of botched backstreet abortions. I am equally horrified by that. (And yes, I did look at the picture.) But I am also horrified at the legalised killing of millions of innocent unborn children every year.

    I will also make clear that I am entirely in favour of allowing abortions where the mother’s life is directly endangered by the prospect of childbirth. I agree with you that condemning both the mother and the child to die in childbirth, rather than killing the child to save the mother, would be senseless. But where a woman seeks a backstreet abortion, the situation is not quite the same.

    There is no easy solution, and no solution which will avert human suffering. In the long run, the best we can do is to work to build a better society; a society in which every child is cared for, in which women are not forced to seek abortion (legal or illegal) and in which people have the social and family support they need to raise a child. That society is a long way off. But in the meantime, I’m sorry, but I cannot endorse legalised homicide – regardless of the many social justifications.

  125. Grammar RWA says

    Okay, Walton. I’m going to explain the abortion issue to you, since you don’t bother to do research on your own before you spout off your uninformed opinions. I’m going to start out being patient with you, and I’m going to become increasingly surly as you ignore the data in favor of your own ideology. Here goes:

    The World Health Organization (satisfying Wikipedia citation standards) recently conducted a comprehensive study of abortion rates in nations around the world. [ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html ]

    Their findings were extremely consistent, allowing me to simplify greatly here without sacrificing accuracy:

    In nations where abortion is illegal, the rate of abortions performed was equal to the rate in nations where abortion is legal. In other words, no matter whether abortion is legal or illegal, the same number of fetuses get killed. Procuring abortions is so important to women who need them, that the possibility of jail time is no impediment. And that makes sense, because the rational person weighing her options can see that the possibility of imprisonment (or death; see next paragraph) is preferable to the certainty of unwanted childbirth and childrearing. Rational self interest: a conservative should be familiar with it.

    That was the first finding. Illegality does not reduce the number of fetuses being killed.

    However, in nations where abortion is illegal, more women die during and after the procedure. That also makes sense. Of course back-alley abortions are going to be more dangerous than abortions in a hospital or clinic with well-trained staff under minimal pressure.

    Summary: outlawing abortion does not reduce the number of fetuses being killed, but it does increase the number of women being killed.

    This is why Aquaria hates you, and why you deserve that hatred. The only effect of your policy is to kill women.

    There actually are ways to reduce the number of abortions in general, and the number of late-term abortions in particular, without using the criminal code. These methods are reliable and well-studied. I’m not going to tell you what they are, because I’m not willing to spoonfeed you everything. But if you hang out at Pandagon like I suggested before, you will learn what the methods are.

  126. Colugo says

    “What makes you think that another terrorist assault would have happened under a Democratic government?”

    WTC 1993, Kenya and Tanzania US embassy bombings, USS Cole.

    “What makes you think a terrorist assault by a gang is an act of war like Pearl Harbor?”

    Al-Qaeda’s declaration of war. Overseas funding, recruitment, and training networks. (Are sovereign nation-states required for war? Then most violent conflicts between armed factions since WWII are not war, nor are many throughout history that are today called “wars.”)

    “Capitalism is great, as long as it is constantly protected from itself.”

    Agreed.

  127. Walton says

    For the record, I agree with everything Colugo says at #127 – though I’m not going to get involved in that argument, since I’m already trying to discuss abortion and can’t handle several conversations at once.

  128. Colugo says

    Thanks, Walton, but for the record I am 100% pro-choice.

    If I were a woman I’d damn well want the option of having an abortion without anyone else butting. As a man, I want the women I know to have that choice.

    I’m also pro-animal research, pro-voluntary euthanasia, and pro-capital punishment. I’m also in favor of totally eradicating certain species; for example, guinea worm. The principle of the sanctity of life is sometimes taken too far.

  129. spurge says

    “In the long run, the best we can do is to work to build a better society; a society in which every child is cared for, in which women are not forced to seek abortion (legal or illegal) and in which people have the social and family support they need to raise a child. That society is a long way off.”

    And guess what?

    The conservatives you admire do everything in their power to make sure that none of that will happen.

  130. MAJeff, OM says

    None whatsoever. It should be the performance of the abortion which is criminalised.

    So, taking part in illegal activity, and paying for said illegal activity–indeed, in your little world, paying someone to kill–should not be punishable.

    But in the meantime, I’m sorry, but I cannot endorse legalised homicide – regardless of the many social justifications.

    But paying for someone to do it will still be ok.

    Kind of puts the lie to the “homicide” nonsense.

  131. Walton says

    Colugo at #129: I understand that, and I didn’t expect to agree with you on everything. But as regards foreign policy and economics, you seem to be saying some sensible things.

  133. Walton says

    Grammar RWA at #126: You raise interesting and thought-provoking points, and I wasn’t previously familiar with that WHO study. From a utilitarian perspective, I can entirely see where you’re coming from; if we know it’s going to happen anyway, why not make it safe and legal?

    However, I have fundamental issues of principle with that proposition. A form of conduct which is inherently wrong (such as homicide) ought never to be legalised, regardless of the utilitarian social value of legalising it – because legalisation gives it a form of legitimacy and tacit endorsement by the state. One might as well say “murder is going to happen anyway, let’s legalise it!” Hence my opposition to the legality of abortion. Is it not more horrific for millions of people to die with the blessing of the state than for them to die through crime? Does the state not need to stand up for its moral values?

  134. True Bob says

    Colugo, it seems to me that you are conflating events in implying or believing that R administrations somehow protect against terrrrrsm better than D admins.

    This admin has ignored warnings it received. We will never know if 9/11 could’ve been prevented, but doing NOTHING is the worst possible course.

    AQ has shown that they are not a bomb-a-week terrrrrst cell, like the old PIRA. It was, what, 6 years between attacks on the WTC? No attacks != threat resolved. All it means is that no attacks occured. And why should AQ attack Der Fatherland anyway? They are getting plenty of recruitment propoganda by our occupation of Iraq.

    And, let me note that in this administration (maybe gummint), terrrsts are all brown and overseas. OK City – NOT terrrrsm. Abortion clinic bombings and Dr assasinations – NOT terrrrsm. Threats against public officials, public figures, anthrax delivery = NOT terrrrsm.

    I’m not arguing one side against the other, I’m just saying the shrubco inc administration is NOT an example of success. W = Man W/Fecal Touch

  136. plum grenville says

    “This does throw up some difficult moral dilemmas – for instance, where a child is conceived as a result of rape – but in essence, it’s about the sanctity of human life.”

    If, as you claim to believe Walton, that a foetus is a full human being with rights equal to those of the mother, then rape-caused pregnancies are not “a difficult moral dilemma.” You shouldn’t have any qualms about preventing abortions in such cases. The nature of the act of conception which resulted in the foetus has no bearing on the sanctity of the foetus’s life. Where’s the dilemma?

    Or maybe you really meant that you would find it emotionally difficult to force a rape victim to continue her pregnancy? And why would that be? Because you have sympathy for a woman who kept her legs closed and no sympathy for one who didn’t? Sounds a lot like wanting to control women’s bodies based on your approval or disapproval of their behaviour to me.

  137. Colugo says

    “R administrations somehow protect against terrrrrsm better than D admins.”

    I wasn’t arguing that. I was just addressing that specific point.

    As for the no major attacks on US homeland, embassies, warships in 7 years it could well be just an operational lull (there were 8 years between 1st and 2nd WTC attacks) or due to the destruction of terrorist bases and unraveling of networks. I would not be surprised if there were another 9/11 tomorrow. (Nor would I be surprised if there were not.)

  138. Azkyroth says

    Anti-abortionists don’t have their opinions because they want to oppress women, they have that opinion because abortion involves killing foetuses.

    This claim is manifestly at odds with their actual policy positions and many of their statements.

  139. windy says

    David:

    It seems we need a few Finns here. Or Estonians. Any volunteers?

    It’s not exactly voluntary for me :)

    The dots on the Ä’s and Ö’s in Finnish are not umlauts and not really diaeresis either, since the letters represent independent vowels of their own. They’ve speciated!

    Rick R:

    “Hyvää päivää, ystävä! Minä rakastan sinua!”

    When someone asks me to translate a phrase to Finnish, I usually have to add “but we don’t actually say that.”

  140. SC says

    I’m sorry that I’ve provoked your contempt

    You’re causing me severe neurological damage with this repeated utterance. I hope the guilt weighs heavily upon you.

    thought-provoking

    I’m beginning to think it’s about as easy to provoke you to actual thought as it would be to provoke my Golden Retriever to a violent attack.

    Does the state not need to stand up for its moral values?

    This is, as we used to say when I was a child, a laugh and a half.

  141. Grammar RWA says

    Is it not more horrific for millions of people to die with the blessing of the state than for them to die through crime?

    No.

    What is more horrific is for more people to die.

    If the facts were “whether legal or illegal, the same number of fetuses and women will die,” then you might have a point.

    But you have now declared that you want more people to die. You are a monster. Now I hate you as well. See how easy that was?

    One might as well say “murder is going to happen anyway, let’s legalise it!”

    If by some (as yet unforeseen) sociological mechanism, legalizing murder would actually result in fewer people dying, then yes, legalizing murder would be the right thing to do.

    Because, you see, the state’s only legitimate moral interest is in protecting the lives and rights of as many citizens as possible. If tools other than the criminal code are more effective, then those tools must be used instead of the criminal code. To do otherwise is to fetishize legality over morality.

    I am not a utilitarian. I believe in rights. In particular, here we are considering the right of women to live. My choice is for more women to exercise that right. Your choice is to revoke that right from more women.

  142. says

    Ultimately, as far as I’m concerned, a fetus is a human being. … That is why I am against abortion – and for no other reason.

    You’re against abortion only as long as someone else has to carry the can for your moral superiority.

    Banning abortion does not stop abortions happening: it only endangers the life of poor women, forced to have backstreet abortions, or exports the abortion to a neighbouring jurisdiction where it’s legal, if the woman can can afford it.

    There are cases where abortion is not only morally allowable, but morally imperative. Anyone who believes that a 14-year old rape victim carrying an anencephalic foetus should be forced to carry it to term, is truly a nasty evil person.

    Nobody likes abortion. Nobody says “hey, abortions are so great, every woman should have a few of them!”. Clinton got it right: they should be safe, legal, and rare. We can help make them rare with good sex education, availability of contraception, and destigmatising single motherhood — all things the “pro-life” hypocrites oppose.

  143. Azkyroth says

    However, I have fundamental issues of principle with that proposition. A form of conduct which is inherently wrong (such as homicide) ought never to be legalised, regardless of the utilitarian social value of legalising it – because legalisation gives it a form of legitimacy and tacit endorsement by the state. One might as well say “murder is going to happen anyway, let’s legalise it!” Hence my opposition to the legality of abortion. Is it not more horrific for millions of people to die with the blessing of the state than for them to die through crime? Does the state not need to stand up for its moral values?

    Ascribing a nonutilitarian value to an abstract concept of “principle” is insane.

  144. lordjoe says

    Great video! A perfect parody of the modern Republican voter that should be run on every station in the country this election cycle.

    For those who object to the FDA and GMO swipes, I think you miss the points made: the FDA used to rigorously test products before they were licensed for use, but in the 90’s that process was fast-tracked and ever since an increasing percentage of the “research” comes from the companies trying to get the licenses — the FDA does little actual testing anymore and as a consequence the recall rates for drugs has sky rocketed in the last decade or two over earlier rates. The GMO swipe is about the right to _know_ what is in your food, not whether or not GMO foods should be allowed.

    And for all those who think this insults Republicans by making them out to be a lot of dolts with comically self-harmful opinions, you also miss the point. This video is about what the Republicans have been doing in their positions of power over the years and, by extension, what the people who vote for them must therefor believe — that is, if they were actually informed about what their votes were accomplishing. It is a well deserved slap in the face to everyone who has enabled the modern Republican party and the damage that they have done by voting for them, if you ask me.

  145. Seamus McButtsex says

    The last line needs to be:

    “or else we’ll send you to Gitmo to be butt-raped.”

    It just sings…

  146. Walton says

    We can help make them [abortions] rare with good sex education, availability of contraception, and destigmatising single motherhood — all things the “pro-life” hypocrites oppose. – And all things I support, to some degree. On point 1, I am in favour of comprehensive sex education, not just abstinence education; abstinence is the ideal, but the reality is that some teenagers are inevitably going to have sex, and I’m in favour of teaching them how to do so safely. On point 2, I have no problem whatsoever with contraception; I’m not Catholic, and I disagree with the Catholic Church’s stance on this issue. On point 3, I don’t think single motherhood is the ideal; studies suggest that a child generally develops better, and performs better academically and socially, if they have both a mother and a father. But I certainly wouldn’t attach any kind of irrational stigma to single mothers, and I do think they merit help and support.

  147. D says

    I don’t actually think engaging Walton is in any way productive, but as the subject is generally of some interest to me and I have not seen anyone else bring up a few points, I will do so for general consideration.

    As others have pointed out, the idea that a fetus as a human being equivalent of an adult is rather absurd and requires a vast idealogical leap of faith. However, as many have done this, it seems that the continued flaws of the anti-choice stance should be pointed out even given this premise. At this starting point, that a fetus/embryo is a human being, there must be asked two questions. When is it permissible for one human being to utilize the body of another human being without their consent? When is it permissible for one human being to take the life of another human being?

    Claims that abortion is wrong are completely contradictory to any other situation where these questions come into play. We do not let one human being to utilize the body of another without consent. We do allow killing of one human being by another in order to protect the latter’s well being from assaults from the former.

  148. Walton says

    We do not let one human being to utilize the body of another without consent. We do allow killing of one human being by another in order to protect the latter’s well being from assaults from the former.

    You can’t compare a fetus to a person committing assault. A fetus is by its nature innocent; it has no choice; it isn’t a rational moral agent.

  149. Josh says

    Walton, why is abstinence the ideal if you have no problem with contraception? Because we don’t yet have 100% successful mechanisms?

  150. outlier says

    Brain @ #90:

    I prefer not to have shit in my meat, if that is understandable to you. That is why maximum line speed matters.

  151. Walton says

    I don’t actually think engaging Walton is in any way productive…

    I have had enough of this. I have been CONSISTENTLY civil, polite and reasonable. I have not attacked anyone. I have attempted to answer people’s points as best I can. Why, pray, is it “not productive” to converse with me?

    I am not Ann Coulter; I don’t revel in being hated by liberals. I want to earn the respect of those I converse with, regardless of their political ideology. And I really tried. I did not storm into this forum and say “FUCK U LIBTARDS”, did I?

    I just don’t understand what I’ve gone wrong, and why so many people are acting as if I’m trolling. Yes, I make mistakes and get things wrong. When I have been corrected on facts, I have accepted the correction. When someone has rebutted one of my points, I have attempted to respond in a timely and relevant fashion. What would you have me do? Throw up my hands in despair at the superior brilliance of your arguments, and convert to liberalism? (And if I did do that, you’d accuse me of taking the piss.)

  153. D says

    You can’t compare a fetus to a person committing assault. A fetus is by its nature innocent; it has no choice; it isn’t a rational moral agent.

    The anti-choicer compares a fetus to a person, but then objects when it is compared to a person. Classic.

  154. outlier says

    Walton, I too come to my stance regarding abortion by considering the interests of the fetus.

    It is not among a fetus’ interests to be forcibly birthed. It _is_ in a fetus’ interest if the matter of whether it should go on to develop into a baby, child, and adult, were left to the people that were responsible for it.

    That it is why I am pro-choice.

  155. MartinM says

    A form of conduct which is inherently wrong (such as homicide) ought never to be legalised, regardless of the utilitarian social value of legalising it – because legalisation gives it a form of legitimacy and tacit endorsement by the state.

    So if it could be shown that legalizing homicide actually reduced the homicide rate by 10%, you’d still oppose that? What about 20%? 50%? 99%?

  156. says

    @#149 Walton —

    You can’t compare a fetus to a person committing assault. A fetus is by its nature innocent; it has no choice; it isn’t a rational moral agent.

    But you agree that it is ok to abort a fetus where not doing so would risk the mother’s life. You have previously claimed that the fetus’ life is not worth more than the mothers. Why? Unlike the fetus, the mother is a rational moral agent who has, having lived as long as she has, almost certainly comitted some social wrong. Maybe the doctor should do a background check on the woman, weighting her wrong actions as negatives and her right actions as positive. The fetus is a baseline 0. If the woman comes out above zero, she can live; below zero, the fetus gets to live. (If the woman also comes out to an even 0…draw straws?)

    Do you see the absurdity here? Your assertions to the contrary, there is good, solid evidence for when sentient brain activity starts in the fetus (see the Sagan article linked to in a previous thread). Not so in the case of trying to judge whether a person deserves to live based on that person’s unique life history.

  157. Grammar RWA says

    To understand how Walton’s logic breaks down into rabid ideology, let’s consider a hypothetical behavior, “ragnarating.” (A lame name, but I protest that I had little time to brainstorm.) It has the following properties:

    Ragnarating is a behavior that humans can perform.
    Under normal circumstances, ragnarating causes unnecessary death to one other human, thus infringing on their right to live. We can agree it is inherently wrong because of this.
    Due to sociological forces that are not well understood, outlawing ragnarating causes the behavior to spread exponentially, such that within a week, all human life will be ended (the last one standing ragnarates himself).

    Now, if it were true that it is a fundamental moral principle that “a form of conduct which is inherently wrong ought never to be legalised,” then that would hold true in all cases. Fundamental moral principles are universally true, or else they aren’t fundamental. Universals include hypotheticals. This is all basic moral philosophy.

    But here we have a case where outlawing a behavior leads to the death of all humans. If the goal was to protect the rights of humans to live, then criminalizing ragnarating has thoroughly defeated that goal. The so-called fundamental moral principle is rendered absurd in this case, and contradicts itself. Thus it is not fundamental.

    Well, it’s all easy to see in the reductio ad absurdum. But does the contradiction exist in less extreme scenarios? Real scenarios?

    Yes. In the case at hand, Walton asserts that: 1) killing women is wrong, 2) killing fetuses is wrong, and 3) failing to outlaw killing fetuses is wrong. But the WHO data shows that outlawing the killing of fetuses results in the killing of women, but not fewer killings of fetuses.

    So, outlawing the killing of fetuses is right (from Walton’s assertion 3).
    And, outlawing the killing of fetuses is wrong (from the WHO data combined with Walton’s assertion 1).

    There’s the contradiction, and the absurdity. To resolve it, at least one of those assertions must be discarded.

    What you’ve failed to acknowledge, Walton, is that outlawing abortion is the same as killing women. It is the direct result of your policy, and you are responsible for the results of your policy. If you (along with other anti-choicers) could get abortion outlawed, you would be killing women, with the blessing of the state. But you just said that killing with the blessing of the state must never be allowed.

    Inability to recognize self-contradiction: another data point in the ongoing study, “are conservatives stupid, evil, or both?”

  158. melior says

    I just have to laugh every time the bedwetters say things like “It’s been almost 7 years since 9-11-2001 and we have not been attacked on our home soil again.”

    They obviously think because they’re only watching Fake News that no one else remembers the anthrax attacks either.

  159. Walton says

    To Grammar RWA at #158: OK, you win. I can’t answer that.

    I’m a fallible human being, with no special claim to superior intelligence or expertise. I get things wrong at times. :-)

    I’ll get back to this issue in a few days, I evidently need to do some research.

    (I know I should really stick to my guns and continue arguing the point, but in the circumstances I simply can’t.)

  160. Grammar RWA says

    I have had enough of this. I have been CONSISTENTLY civil, polite and reasonable. I have not attacked anyone. I have attempted to answer people’s points as best I can. Why, pray, is it “not productive” to converse with me?

    Well, in my case, it is because you have revealed yourself to be an inhuman monster who literally values ideology higher than life.

    I can’t imagine that someone like who would do that could ever be amenable to reason. If ideology is more important even than life, what could possibly be said to demonstrate the inadequacy of that ideology? So I can no longer imagine that you are worth engaging rationally.

    However, if I can torment you by inducing cognitive dissonance, that might be fun for me. So it’s not strictly true that the conversation is entirely unproductive.

    I just have to let go of my hope that you can be reached by an appeal to compassion. Ah well. You aren’t the first.

  161. True Bob says

    melior, if you are talking about me, I was unclear – AQ hasn’t attacked us in Der Fatherland since. I noted all the other “NOT terrrrrsts” have been waging war.

  162. Grammar RWA says

    Good god, maybe I was wrong. This is a very uncomfortable situation for me, to not know whether you are in fact a sociopath, or whether I will soon enough have to issue an apology for underestimating you. Much dissonance on my end as well. I dare say I’ll have to have a few drinks to quiet the buzzing.

  163. D says

    Given that Walton has made such a statement before, without actually doing any research before re-engaging, I think you’ll be safe from eating crow Grammar.

  164. melior says

    Bob, perhaps you should be careful revealing that the anthrax terrorist attacks on the US weren’t by al Qaida. As far as I am aware the perpetrators are still unknown to officials, and your apparent personal knowledge might be of interest to investigators.

    If we had a president who captured bin Laden like Bush promised to but failed, we could be more certain, couldn’t we.

  165. AtheistAcolyte says

    @Negentropyeater –

    First, I used to make deals with Walmart. I worked as VP for a very large consumer electronics multinational and I know the kind of margins that were left for us, suppliers. And we were big guys, I mean almost the same size as Walmart. Just imagine for small guys. Happy ? Well, we had no choice, we needed the volume, they represented about 30-40% of the US market, so giving up was giving up on market share, which was unthinkable.

    Are you telling us that 30-40% of your U.S. consumer electronics market was being sold at wholesale + retailer markup? You made absolutely $0.00 profit on every unit sold?

    Sounds a bit outlandish to me. I find it hard to believe that a “very large consumer electronics multinational” staffed by people with any business sense would let any of its products go at cost, market share be damned. And while I make no claims to having said business sense, it sounds to me like you just had a terrible negotiator or bloat in your manufacturing costs.

  166. Josh says

    I know I should really stick to my guns and continue arguing the point…

    Not if you can’t back it up. If you can, that’s fine. Rock on. It you cannot, however, but insist on continuing to argue anyway, it shows a lack of willingness to learn. This is not a good trait.

  167. Azkyroth says

    A form of conduct which is inherently wrong (such as homicide) ought never to be legalised, regardless of the utilitarian social value of legalising it – because legalisation gives it a form of legitimacy and tacit endorsement by the state.

    Rhetorical question: why is homicide wrong?

    Specifically, can you offer a justification other than “its actual effects on people” or “Skydaddy said so?”

  168. norm! says

    I’m an athiest. To read about the strengths of the argument and to revel in the wit that so many athiests share means to also put up with a lot of liberal politics. This video is utterly unfair. Can it be that the whole lib vs fundy discourse has been reduced to such pieces of garbage? The Ford versus Chevy argument has more sense to it than the American political bash-fest. So does Coke vs Pepsi, Michigan vs Ohio State, and Stones vs Beatles.

    I would no more agree with the statements in this video than to suggest one votes democrat because “I think everyone should be on welfare and drugs”, “I want to eliminate your right to go to church”, or “I don’t think that a tax break could possibly help anyone but the rich”.

    The number of comments generated from this piece is large, not because it is of substance, but because this is the State of the Fight: name calling, petty and unreasonable.

    PZ, you should be ashamed to advance such ludicrous nonsense. Stick to the biology and (a)theology topics. This is “science news”, after all, not “flame bait”.

  170. lordjoe says

    Walton @#152
    “I have had enough of this. I have been CONSISTENTLY civil, polite and reasonable. I have not attacked anyone. I have attempted to answer people’s points as best I can. Why, pray, is it “not productive” to converse with me?”

    Dude, you come to a heavy Biology/Atheist site that is known for heated discussion and post views that you know will be generally disagreed with and then play the unjust injury card? As they like to say in conservative circles, “like it or leave it”. Look on the bright side, at least none of us “libtards” want you to leave the country just because we disagree with you (and no, I am not implying that you share this rather common conservative view).

    And now, just so that I can join into the fray by [in a hopefully polite way] puncturing what appears to be your entire argument, I refer you back to:

    Walton @#89
    “In the end, there is only one operative question on the subject of abortion: at which point in pregnancy does a fetus become a human life? If one believes that life begins at conception, then abortion, for any reason other than saving the life of the mother, is morally indefensible and constitutes homicide.”

    If I had a certain “traditional” American view of race and firmly believed that some minorities were non (or at least sub) human, then by your own argument I could not be guilty of murder when I killed a few of them. Let me put it a another way; what do the following things have in common?

    1. Santa Claus
    2. Christianity (or any other religion)
    3. The Jewish conspiracy to control the world
    4. Four leaf clovers bring you luck
    5. A partially developed fetus is equivalent to a breathing human being

    What do these all have in common? They all require _belief_ and have no basis in fact. Pro-choice does not require that women have abortions, it is merely a recognition that we have no way to _factually_ answer the question of a fetus’ humanity and its deservingness of normal human rights and therefore the only reasonable choice we can make is to let each women that must deal with an unwanted pregnancy make that choice herself.

    The the measurable facts of pregnancy and abortion ever change, then I am confident that the opinions of 99%+ of those who support pro-choice will change as a result. Can you say the same for anti-abortion advocates?

  171. craig says

    The real problem with genetically modified food is intellectual property law. Patents.

  172. negentropyeater says

    #166 yes, maybe 1 or 2% profit at the very most.
    What do you expect when a retailer becomes so big ?
    And with that, we should have considered ourselves “happy”.
    If you think you can do a better job…

    Most manufacturing based businesses are the same. Why do you think they all went for delocalizations, just pushing the prices further down so that American consumers can consume more of that stuff at credit… Another consequence of the so called “beneficial economies of scale” of retailers.

    Americans have been pushing this to an extreme, they don’t even know why, it’s just supposed to be better for the consumer. Give me a break.
    All it did is artificially increase the growth rate of the economy and push further down the road to the next generations to clean the mess.
    And now, we have no idea how to clean the mess, we’ve destroyed the structure of our economy, we’re addicted to consumption, we are in all extents and purposes litteraly bankrupt and we keep thanking the very monsters who are responsible for our addiction.
    It’s exactly as if we were thanking the drug cartels, and keep repeating that they should get more foccused on economies of scale.

  173. tony (not a vegan) says

    re: Walton & abstinence is the ideal

    No reason other than that being the god-botherer stance.

    There is no HUMAN rationale for abstinence. It is the sad remnant of a male dominated society that looked on women as (valuable) property, and so denied copulation with that property except in prescribed ways (and only by specific persons). Even then, abstinence applied only to women, and many (if not most) patriarchal tribal societies have utilised catamites, indulging in male pederasty to maintain the purity of valuable property.

    just my 2c.

    I could probably look up the refs regarding the tribal sociology if bothered.

  174. windy says

    Ultimately, as far as I’m concerned, a fetus (as opposed to a blastocyst or an embryo) is a human being. A fetus in the later stages of pregnancy has a brain stem and brain activity, and human physical features.

    A fetus is a fetus from the 9th week. That’s not “the later stages of pregnancy”.

    The fact is that, on the medical evidence, we simply do not and cannot know at what point a fetus becomes an independent human being, with feelings, consciousness and emotions.

    If you can draw the line between fetus and non-fetus using superficial characteristics, you are already using evidence to determine when it becomes human. What’s wrong with looking at the evidence more closely and drawing the line at the later stages of pregnancy?

  176. says

    abstinence is the ideal

    What a load of crap. The ideal is consenting adults doing whatever they want with other consenting adults, doing so safely, and only having kids as a deliberate decision.

    What punishment exactly do you propose for Women who get abortions Walton? – None whatsoever. It should be the performance of the abortion which is criminalised.

    OK, then, what if the woman performs the abortion herself with a knitting needle? That’s the road you want to take us down. What’s the appropriate penalty for her?

  177. Carlie says

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’d suggest calming down on Walton a bit. Having formerly been in his camp, I can say that abortion is an extremely emotionally charged issue, and switching from looking at it as “babybabybabybaby” to looking at it from the angle of the woman, of the society, of all the possible reasons abortions need to and can be performed, to all of the real implications of legality and illegality, is a really hard thing to do. It’s a huge brain switch, it really is, especially when you’ve been fed the babybabybaby line for a long time. He seems to be thinking about it – give him a little time and some good links.

    Walton, here’s one story that really helped convince me that abortion should be kept entirely legal. There are lots of other reasons, and the mental exercise of taking things to their logical conclusions also are quite persuasive, but this is one single personal example. Emotional, if you will. Truly heartbreaking. Not theory, not hypothetical, but one real woman who would have died if abortion were illegal. In fact, she would die if it happened now, thanks to the so-called “partial birth abortion” ban that recently went into effect. It sucks to use one example of why this right should be extended to all women, but it’s a place to start. It’s a place to say “Yes, she needed one”, and to realize that if it were illegal, that means her too. Please go read it.

  178. Azkyroth says

    If you can draw the line between fetus and non-fetus using superficial characteristics, you are already using evidence to determine when it becomes human. What’s wrong with looking at the evidence more closely and drawing the line at the later stages of pregnancy?

    The equivocation between “human” meaning “Homo sapiens” and “human” meaning “person.”

  179. MAJeff, OM says

    I was living in Mankato when the MN legislature passed–in very disgusting fashion–it’s “informed consent”/waiting period law (otherwise known as the “lie to women and throw roadblocks in their way” legislation). I would get into conversations about the bill, and women would start telling me the stories of their abortions.

    It’s all find and good in abstraction until you deal with real, living women and their own bodies and lives.

    But, I keep forgetting, women aren’t people.

  180. windy says

    The equivocation between “human” meaning “Homo sapiens” and “human” meaning “person.”

    Walton is already in the latter camp since embryos are undeniably Homo sapiens but he doesn’t object to getting rid of those. So now we’re just “haggling over the price”.

  181. norm! says

    #176: I suppose you have something to teach me?

    Your response affirms what I stated. You assume a whole bunch of crap, and provide no support for what you say. You think I belong to some “they” that can’t “learn”. Try not to be so desperately wrong in your next post.

  182. King of all Jews says

    I’m might vote Republican for the same reasons that these bozos are PLUS I enjoy seeing the poor being continually fucked and
    the sick tossed out of hospitals on their asses because the GOP wont give us our entitled free medicine.
    BUT don’t just listen to me. These folks below are much more savey than I will ever be.
    Plus the Democrats hate God so I hope he fucks them food at the next election and elects for the guy who called his wife a CUNT!

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/im_voting_republican.php

    You liberals are all the same.
    grow up
    the country don’t owe you shit
    those of you who can still afford boots, pull yourselves up by the straps
    get a freakin job – at 50 cents an hour so we dont have to support your lazy asses
    I MAY vote Republican because I am a real red blooded Middle American who hates you
    east coast, politically effete, homo, lezbo, commie, pinko, jew, conscientious objectors,
    beatnik, hippy traitors

    May God and baby Jesus strike you down for your evil ways

    VOTE REPUBLICAN and continue the American tradition of fucking the poor and disenfranchised

  183. negentropyeater says

    It’s obvious that this generation is going to pay for the excesses of the baby boomers. It’s no mistery. And it’s happening now, in the coming 18 months.
    When some economists talk of recession, they seem to imply that it’s going to be a mild one.
    This is going to be the mother of all recessions, the really big one, for 3 simple reasons :

    the triple whammy :

    – the boomers are now all entering in retirement, they have an average life expectancy 15 years older than when they were born, THEY haven’t saved a penny, when all their consumption has been borrowed at credit, and now the current generations are supposed to work, save, borrow, and pay for a much larger generation which is going to stay here for much longer than expected

    – moreover, it’s quite obvious that we need to reduce consumption of resources because depleating the resources of this planet at an accelerated rate and overheating the atmosphere is kind of the most dumm thing to do, we can’t even understand how we couldn’t have thought about it before ? Were we dreaming or what, we could just continue this kind of exponential growth forever ?

    – and now, just at this moment, the price of one of our most important resources, oil, just doubles in a year

    Now when you add to this context small tiny factors really, like;

    – the explosion of the worst housing bubble ever
    – a financial and credit crisis

    So when we have some kind of loons (the republicans) who don’t think that we have to
    – drastically change the way we have been doing business so far,
    – drastically change this mental illness that we have inherited from our parents that somehow “consumption is required for happiness”
    – drastically change this fucked up notion that the moral codes of religions have any degree of validity in our society whatsoever, and that we have to organise society according to what we think is best for us today, and not what it should have been if we were still living in the times of mesopotamian goatherders, kind of really, really “conservative”, if you start thinking about it

    THAT is somehow, how I receive the message of this “sarcastic” video.

    One that says : “if you don’t think we should change anything, really, then, vote republican”

  184. AtheistAcolyte says

    @negentropyeater (#173) –

    #166 yes, maybe 1 or 2% profit at the very most.
    What do you expect when a retailer becomes so big ?
    And with that, we should have considered ourselves “happy”.
    If you think you can do a better job…

    It doesn’t take a great actor to spot a bad one… I don’t have to think I can do a better job to think someone else is doing a bad one.

  186. negentropyeater says

    Oh and I forgot one to the list of things the republicans want to continue doing which seems completely and utterly irresponsible :

    – continue increasing our military expenditure, caught into some kind of mega paranoia, where Americans spend about half of everybody on the planet, and where the greatest risk for most habitants of the planet, comes from a Christian loon megalomaniac type to get elected president and start invading everyone.

    Of course this serves absolutely no purpose at all to “saveguard America’s security”, when they could easily reduce their military spending by 90% and spend the money on other more constructive things for their own economy, their “security” would still be perfectly secured

    No, this is just for some kind of megalomaniac illusion that somehow they can buy themselves the control of oil, and keep their people happy in the delusion that they are “the greatest nation of all”

    It just keeps the delusion running. Afterall, that’s the policy of republicans, maintaining delusions well rooted.

  187. SC says

    #176: I suppose you have something to teach me?

    Yes – improved trolling through better spelling.

  188. True Bob says

    AA, do you really think Wallymart is fair to its suppliers? What neg is describing doesn’t happen with only his company, Walmart leans on every one of them. And they get their way, because if you don’t kowtow, they won’t carry your products AT ALL. That’s an instant and huge drop in market share. That’s even worse than slim profit margins, so they must comply. If they won’t, no distro, and their competition gets the deals.

    This is not restricted to WM. Ever notice how you go to restaurants and they carry Pepsi OR Coke? That leverage affects bottom lines. Grocery stores get it too, recently in VA from wine providers.

    Also, actors aren’t businesses. Just because a business is getting hurt doesn’t mean it could be done better.

    Are you arguing because you really believe WM is benign, or do you just like arguing?

  189. Longtime Lurker says

    IMHO, the big problem of GMO is the patent issue. There have been cases in which Monsanto has sue small farmers because their organic crops have been pollinated by genetically modified crops in nearby fields.

    We are already faced with problems caused by monoculture, and lack of genetic diversity in our foodstuffs (hence the “seed fortress” on Svalbard). The big agribusinesses have put effort into developing sterile crops, forcing farmers to continuously buy seeds, they go after farmers whose crops are pollinated by patented plants- we’re setting ourselves up for (wait for it): EPIC FAIL!!!

    Sorry about sounding alarmist, but hell, even the Iowa floods have me considering stockpiling cornmeal. Mmm…Polenta…uhhh…

  191. negentropyeater says

    #185 But look at the margins from the different industries, look in the details, don’t “assume” thing you don’t know :

    In most industries it’s the smae, the real profitable margins are made with the high value items, the one that require special service and explication for the sale. Not the ones that can be pushed well through mass retailers.

    Look in most industries its the same kind of results, 1 or 2 % profits on 60% of the sales, mainly done via the walmarts, and 10 to 15 % on the rest, mainly done by the specialists and the smaller independent retailers.
    Gives you an average of 5 to 8% which is what the manufacturing industries have been making on average all these years, despite all the delocalizations.

  192. negentropyeater says

    It doesn’t surprise me at all, many of the reactions here.

    Hey it’s not for nothing that the republicans have been maintaining active the delusions, all delusions, so active all this time.
    Whether it’s the delusions of religion, or the delusions of “we should export freedom and happiness”, of “consumption is good”, of “we’re the greatest nation on the planet, these delusions are still well active, even at the basis of the democratic party.

    That’s what this is intended for, the basis of the democratic party, so that it gets rid of its own delusions left there by the republicans.

    This video doesn’t say “I’m voting republican”, it says “I’m voting democrat, and this is what I don’t stand for, this is not my vision of a better world”

    It does that with great sarcasm.

  193. Nick Gotts says

    In a truly free market, prices would reflect the complete life-cycle costs of products, from sustainable resource extraction to safe disposal, including environmental cleanup costs. – GKusnick

    There never has been, and never can be, such a thing as a “truly free market”. Any market is embedded in an institutional system that enables it to function. There have to be laws, or informal norms, about what information must be made available to the buyer, under what conditions they can demand a refund, who is responsible if food sold turns out to be contaminated, who is eligible to take part in the market (young children, known fraudsters), whether slaves can be sold – after all, if they can’t, that is a restriction on the market! With regard to the claim that such a mythical system would ensure that prices would reflect the true life-cycle cost, how on Earth could it ensure that? Who would calculate this cost and how? Or would they just “emerge” in some magical fashion?

    We can see the huge flaws of unregulated capitalism in our gilded age. We can see them in jolly-old industrial-revolution England. We can see them in slave-labor factories (owned by US and Multi-National firms) all over the second and third worlds TO THIS DAY. – moses

    This quasi-slave-labour is an intrinsic part of capitalism – it has existed throughout the capitalist era. Capitalism is a world-system, dependent for its operation on the existence of multiple legal jurisdictions, enabling super-profits to be made by companies based in core states exploiting cheap labour and raw materials in the periphery.

    On GMO food and irradiated food. As has been said, direct dangers from applying the techniques is not the main issue in either case – although in the GMO case, I’m not wholly convinced enough is known about genetics to be sure there are none. In the GMO case, the main problems are the concentration of control over food supplies in the hands of a few corporations – that’s what most work on GMO food is for – and the encouragement of monoculture. Environmental dangers may also be considerable – although there could also be advantages. In the irradiation case, the problem is that irradiation can make old food safe, in the sense that it won’t poison you, but the very point is to prolong shelf life, so it may have lost a lot of nutrients. And of course, there’s the issue of labelling – and note that if GMO foods are grown, everyone ends up eating them, because preventing cross-contamination is impossible in practise.

  194. homostoicus says

    Tony (not a vegan)

    You asked me why I might vote for McCain. #70

    Because he tried to do something about campaign reform and political (lobbying) ethics yet still more market friendly than Obama. (Oh, and because I know some hard core Republicans that he really pisses off. But that’s just a bonus.) We need the (mostly free but regulated) markets to work for us. Planned economies do not work – especially when its a government doing the planning. And I don’t like having both the presidency and the congress controlled by the same party at the same time.

    What I am struggling with is determining which candidate is the least delusional wrt religion.

  195. Walton says

    To Carlie at #178: Reading the story you cited, I can give you a fairly simple answer. In the case in question, the medical evidence was that, had the dilation-extraction not been performed, both the mother and the baby would have died in childbirth. In such circumstances, as I’ve said, I would allow abortion. Indeed, I would allow it in any case where, in the doctors’ judgment, there is a high probability/virtual certainty of the mother dying in childbirth. So that isn’t the debate.

    The debate is whether abortion as a choice, where the mother’s life is not directly threatened by childbirth, should be illegal.

  196. MAJeff, OM says

    It’s always a choice. The question is, who gets to make it, the woman or the state?

  197. says

    @#196 Walton —

    Indeed, I would allow it in any case where, in the doctors’ judgment, there is a high probability/virtual certainty of the mother dying in childbirth. So that isn’t the debate.

    Why? What priviliges the mother’s life above that of the innocent fetus (as per #157)?

  198. negentropyeater says

    thx for the link above Etha, very intersting.

    How do we deal with this question :

    “What happens if, in the future, a new technology develops so that an artificial womb can sustain a fetus even before the sixth month by delivering oxygen and nutrients through the blood–as the mother does through the placenta and into the fetal blood system? We grant that this technology is unlikely to be developed soon or become available to many. But if it were available, does it then become immoral to abort earlier than the sixth month, when previously it was moral? A morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality; for some, it is also an unacceptable morality.”

    Does this mean that we shouldn’t talk about “viability” anymore but evidence of “the earliest onset of human thinking” as criterion ?

  199. says

    It’s always a choice. The question is, who gets to make it, the woman or the state?

    But in Walton’s fantasy land of simple moral absolutes and perfection, the reality that the state cannot make that choice is irrelevant to his lofty moral principles.

    If Walton were a pregnant woman at his stage of life, but in the world he advocates for, he’d be slumped on the floor of his bathroom, terrified and alone, with a knitting-needle in his hand. He just doesn’t know it, and he just doesn’t care.

  200. SC says

    But in Walton’s fantasy land…

    This is evidently the same land in which a few days equals a few hours.

  201. adobedragon says

    So no pro-lifer is arguing that “women can’t be trusted with control over their own bodies”.

    Bullshit.

    Spurge at #111: What punishment exactly do you propose for Women who get abortions Walton? – None whatsoever. It should be the performance of the abortion which is criminalised

    Shorter Walton: “Women are too stupid to make important decisions about their body, therefore, the evil abortionist doctors must be forcing them to have abortions. If it weren’t for those wicked doctors, women wouldn’t have abortions.”

    See folks, the anti-choice crowd, whether they admit it or not, ultimately think women are too stupid to be trusted with their own bodies. That is why, the majority, like Walt-troll here, will yap about punishing doctors, not women. This is supposed to make us think they love women and want to protect them from the big bad world. Which of course is just a lot of misogynist bullshit.

    Women have been having abortions for nearly as long as there have been women. Women have been having abortions from the time that someone discovered that the right combination of toxic herbs would end a pregnancy. They’ve been having abortions from the time someone realized that shoving something pointy up one’s cervix could end a pregnancy.

    Women, desperate women, have been having abortions when it was illegal; when it was dangerous and life threatening; they’ve had abortions (including self-inflicted abortions) even when it meant that they were threatening their future reproductivity.

    It’s a fact of life. There will always be women who are bound and determined not to carry a pregnancy to term. And making abortions illegal won’t change that fact, nor will it “save” babies.

    Reality (give it a try Walton , you might like it, dipshit) is that the path to significantly reduced abortions lies in truly family-friendly measures (eg. affordable family planning for all women, child care, maternity leave, etc.), NOT criminalization.

    As long as the reasons why women chose to abort are ignored, your precious bay-bees will die, as will many women, thanks to illegal and dangerous abortions.

    No one, no thinking person anyway, who really cares about human life, would pursue the path of criminalizing abortion. Criminalization is the way of the misogynist.

  202. Walton says

    This is a tricky moral area (abortion, I mean). Thanks to those who’ve posted interesting links and brought new material into the discussion. After discussing this with you all, I’m a bit more wary of seeing the whole issue in black-and-white moral terms; I honestly hadn’t thought of some of the social consequences.

    Maybe there are good justifications for legal abortion, though I’m still unconvinced that the limit (which in the UK is 24 weeks) is low enough. In a US context, I still oppose Roe v Wade on purely legal and constitutional grounds; but I think it should be left to the states to decide. After this discussion, I honestly don’t know how I would vote on the issue of abortion, were I a legislator.

  203. negentropyeater says

    Maybe there are good justifications for legal abortion, though I’m still unconvinced that the limit (which in the UK is 24 weeks) is low enough

    what would convince you be low enough then ? DO you have any criteria ?
    Do you reject the evidence of “earliest onset of human thinking” ? Or do you have any other reasons ?

  204. Walton says

    what would convince you be low enough then ? DO you have any criteria ?

    I don’t really know. As I’ve been shown, I don’t really have enough knowledge about the area to have a really conclusive or meaningful opinion on the details. So I’m going to have to abandon this particular issue, as I promised to earlier.

  205. True Bob says

    Walton, please don’t abandon the issue, but maybe rethink your position (which is what it sounds like you’re doing). Perhaps you chose unfortunate wording, and mean that you will be learning more to reach a more considered opinion. I would hate to think you abandoned the issue, as in ‘will no longer consider it’.

  206. Walton says

    I would hate to think you abandoned the issue, as in ‘will no longer consider it’. – No, I just meant it in the sense of ‘will not continue discussing it on this particular thread’. I need to rethink it, which will take more time.

  207. AtheistAcolyte says

    AA, do you really think Wallymart is fair to its suppliers?

    Irrelevant, but no, not really. I’m just a little confused how Walmart “leaning on” large multinationals to cut their profit margins is a necessarily bad thing. The argument being supplied sounds a lot like “Mega-Corp A is driving Mega-Corp B’s profits down, ergo Mega-Corp A is bad.”

    What neg is describing doesn’t happen with only his company, Walmart leans on every one of them.

    A bit of a grandiose claim. What’s the proportion of suppliers happy to have Walmart’s business and those unhappy to have Walmart’s business? Or is it just that profit margins per unit are lower than you’d like?

    And they get their way, because if you don’t kowtow, they won’t carry your products AT ALL. That’s an instant and huge drop in market share. That’s even worse than slim profit margins, so they must comply. If they won’t, no distro, and their competition gets the deals.

    So, then, you’re paying for the market share, which Walmart has a fair amount of. I can believe that. But then you’re paying for market share. Is the rate worth the market share? If not, don’t do it. Downsize and sell to Walmart’s competitors (Target, Kohl’s, etc). If it is, then you’re coming out ahead. I don’t think market share (especially as a competitive commodity – either you or your competitors have it) is something that should be given out.

    Also, actors aren’t businesses. Just because a business is getting hurt doesn’t mean it could be done better.

    Are you arguing because you really believe WM is benign, or do you just like arguing?

    The acting point is an analogy. I don’t need to be an expert at something to criticize those who are bad at that same thing. After all, I can register my distaste at Spider-Man 3 (“A guy falls into an obviously multi-million-dollar particle physics experiment and no one happens to be checking the CC vids? Seriously?”) with no movie-making or screenwriting experience of my own, can’t I?

    Perhaps I do like arguing, but I think I have legitimate issues with the claim that “Wal-Mart is bad because they pressure SONY to supply them at-or-near-cost.” They are not benign for other reasons I agree with, but this argument I find poor. Please don’t think I’m trying to absolve Walmart of all it’s sins through this argument. I just don’t think that’s a very good argument for the general public.

  208. Fernando Magyar says

    SC Re #112,

    I didn’t want to get too bogged down with finely dissecting the quote that I had posted.

    I think that maybe the author was thinking of Anarchy more as an organized political ideology in direct opposition to an established power and as such seeking to concentrate the same power for itself. So not really Anarchy. Though I shouldn’t pretend to know his mind. In a way I think similar to someone who speaks of atheism as being and organized fundamentalist religion.

    If truth be told I’m probably closer to being an anarchist in the true sense of the word then anything else. So therefore I do agree and see the point of your objection. I doesn’t however change the larger point I was trying to make with respect Capitalism and Corporatism which are both clearly against individual human rights.

    To clarify with a concrete example I can’t imagine the local power company helping me install solar panels to make me indepent of their centralised power distribution system. To me this is form of practical anarchy.

    Ride a Bike or Take a Hike.

    Cheers!

  209. negentropyeater says

    AA,

    “Wal-Mart is bad because they pressure SONY to supply them at-or-near-cost.”

    I didn’t give this as argument. I gave you a complete argument of the reasons why Walmart is bad. See my post 91. To illustrate one of the points, I gave you my personal experience that even in the case of a very large multi national we mad very poor margins with these guys. I explained the structure of these margins for the industry (my post 192).

    You’re the one who is defending Walmart, as far as I can tell. And what are your arguments ? Some piece of propaganda obviously written by some ignorant twots who claims that “Walmart is sooo good it saved the American consumer 2500$ in economies on packaging and fluorescent lightbulbs”. And what, there are positive articles in the press on Walmart ? What a big surprise, with the advertising budget they have, I really wonder why.

  210. SC says

    Fernando Magyar,

    Thanks for responding! Sorry to pluck one word out of a passage that wasn’t even your own – and which I found most apt – and make you feel you had to defend it. I think we’re largely in agreement. (I could quibble about your distinction between “anarchism as an organized political ideology” and “practical anarchism,” but I won’t – happy enough to see someone write about anarchists without calling us either terrorists or “primitive rebels,” so I’ll quit while I’m ahead! :))

  212. Jesse says

    I don’t think single motherhood is the ideal; studies suggest that a child generally develops better, and performs better academically and socially, if they have both a mother and a father.

    Citations? And no, Focus on the Family is not a viable reference.

  214. MAJeff, OM says

    I don’t think single motherhood is the ideal; studies suggest that a child generally develops better, and performs better academically and socially, if they have both a mother and a father.

    No, studies show that children do best in environments where their social, intellectual, emotional, and physical needs are met. Dual-parent homes may have an easier time providing for those needs, but it’s not the form of the relationships that matters, it’s the content. Indeed, before folks go off on the “mother and father” nonsense, Stacey and Biblarz, in a meta-analysis of the studies of gay parents, find that kids raised in gay households tend to feel more loved and wanted, and tend to be more open and accepting of personal difference in others, than children raised in hetero households. And, these are the primary significant differences that have emerged. So, for all the “children deserve a mother and a father” advocates, like Mitt Romney, the data tend to indicate that we gay folks are doing parenting better. Maybe all children deserve a mother and a mother.

  215. Kseniya says

    It’s also worth noting that these studies also show that kids raised in gay households have no more difficulty identifying their own sexual orientation than do children raised in hetero households.

  217. BaldApe says

    The swipe at GM and irradiated food annoys me. I’m fine with labeling actually,

    Yeah, me too. So when they start labeling cloned food, and they don’t label apples and potatoes (every single one of which is produced from a cloned plant) with whom do I raise hell?

    Seriously, a few of the issues they bring up are not particularly “Republican” so much as not in line with post-modern woo.

    Reminds me of the guy in my speech class who advocated shopping at the Mom and Pop stores. Trouble is, some of those stores actually buy their merchandise from big chain stores on sale, and resell it at a considerable markup to people who don’t have the transportation to leave their neighborhoods to shop.

  218. negentropyeater says

    No, studies show that children do best in environments where their social, intellectual, emotional, and physical needs are met.

    Antique mesopotamian goatherders thought that the best environment was 1 mother, 1 father, faithfully married for life, when :
    1) mothers would be the faithful servants of fathers
    2) “life” meant maximum 20 years together (instead of almost 60 nowadays)
    3) mothers were required to have a high output(5 to 10 children) to compensate for high mortality and the many violent deaths of wars, and where growing the size of the tribe was of paramount importance (nowadays an average of 1 child per mother is roughly what is required to stabilize the population)

    Obviously the fact that the 20th century has fundamentally changed these 3 determinant notions doesn’t matter for Mitt Romney and the republicans, they just “assume” that that model of the family is the best environment for the children.
    Their argument : this is what we believe has worked best in the past, so it will work best nowadays and in the future.
    They simply refuse to adapt to this world of the 21st century.
    How can we adapt better to our new environment if we don’t let the people form many different forms of families, when we don’t know what works best allowing diversity is the most robust form of adaption.

    What is the best environment for the children ? And why should there be one best pro forma family type that’s best ?1 mother 1 father ? 2 mothers ? 2 fathers ? 2 couples ? many parents ? How do we find out if we don’t let people try ?

  219. Grammar RWA says

    Indeed, I would allow it in any case where, in the doctors’ judgment, there is a high probability/virtual certainty of the mother dying in childbirth. So that isn’t the debate.

    Of course, since you never think these things through, that in fact is the debate. “High probability” is a red herring. The fact is, and if you talk to obstetricians they can tell you, there is never any certainty as to what constitutes a high risk or not. What seems like a medium risk may in fact be a tremendous risk due to unforeseen complications, so the woman dies because the operation was illegal.

    And you forget that there are many deceitful anti-choice obstetricians who have been known to lie about the dangers to women’s health. Don’t think for a moment that they won’t lie and say “everything’s safe” so they can get that precious baby born and let the dirty slut die like she deserves.

    Consider the text of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban in the US:

    This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

    Sound good to you? Sure, because you’re not considering what’s missing. There’s no exception for the health of the mother. She can be permanently disfigured, she can be paralyzed for life, she can have her reproductive organs destroyed so she can never have those other babies she was planning to have later when she was economically prepared.

    Conservatives don’t care about any of those things, because it doesn’t matter if a woman’s body is destroyed during childbirth. She’s fulfilling her womanly duty to her man and the state, and if she produces a baby for her patriarch, her own health is now beside the point. She is worthless now, all the worth she was carrying was in her eggs, and now that the baby has left the body, she is of no more use to society. That’s why the amendments that would have protected the mother’s life were removed by Republicans.

    Maybe there are good justifications for legal abortion, though I’m still unconvinced that the limit (which in the UK is 24 weeks) is low enough.

    This is indistinguishable from your previous position, indicating that you have not absorbed anything I’ve told you, and were lying earlier when you said you’d think about it. You’re still a vile monster who wants women to die, and if there was a hell, you’d belong there. Again, fuck you sincerely, Walton, you braindead ideology-worshiping hater of life.

    I think it should be left to the states to decide

    Which means you think it should be the right of the state to murder women. There’s no two fucking ways about this, dumbshit. THINK IT THOUGH. God. What a pathetic fucking parrot you are.

    It doesn’t matter what week you limit abortion. If you limit abortion AT ALL, at any time, you are saving zero fetuses, and killing more women than you would have killed otherwise.

    You are a wannabe murderer, Walton. A truly vile person.

    And you’re trying to murder women with the blessing of the state, too, so you’re a fucking hypocrite. Not that you care, of course. All that bullshit about “thinking this through” was just a fucking lie. You came right back here and repeated exactly the position you previously held. Hypocrite, liar, monster. A fantastic example of the typical conservative, indistinguishable from the worst among the worst of American bigots for whom “principle” is a cover word for your misogyny.

    You want to kill women, and you want the state to help you kill women. You are a misogynist.

  220. CJO says

    The LOLCats version:
    parenting, straight folks r doin it rong.

    I would suggest that what straight folks r doin rong is having children they either don’t want, or can’t support effectively with regards to the needs you outline above, or both. I imagine that gay couples think about their desire to love and ability to support children a lot harder and a lot more rationally than the typical straight couple, many of whom seem to approach parenthood as a default condition. (I am a heterosexual parent in a two-parent home, but I don’t want you to get the impression I’m hostile to what you wrote above –quite the contrary. just adding $.02)

  221. Walton says

    To Grammar RWA.

    This is indistinguishable from your previous position, indicating that you have not absorbed anything I’ve told you, and were lying earlier when you said you’d think about it. – That isn’t true. At the start of this discussion I was convinced that abortion, except where the woman’s life is threatened, should always be illegal. I have now absorbed your practical arguments for why abortion ought to be allowed in a wider set of circumstances than this, and I’m considering the question. I can understand the validity of your argument that, where abortion is prohibited, abortions still occur but at much greater risk to the mother’s life, and that this leads to more women dying from botched abortions. That is a fair point, and I don’t have any kind of answer to it.

    You’re more than entitled to consider me an evil misogynist; it’s not true, but I can’t prove that to you, and this is a highly emotive issue where I knew I was bound to piss someone off. But please don’t accuse me of not listening to you, or of ignoring your arguments in favour of ideology.

  222. reuben says

    I can understand the validity of your argument that, where abortion is prohibited, abortions still occur but at much greater risk to the mother’s life, and that this leads to more women dying from botched abortions. That is a fair point, and I don’t have any kind of answer to it.

    I have an answer for you Walton. How about not prohibit abortions?. Combine that with sex education and contraception programs so that fewer abortions are necessary. Problem solved.

  223. Ellis D. Tripp says

    Oh shit, this is indeed rich! The whole point of this video is that the Republican party had unashamedly debased itself to where it is now the party of American corporate fascism. Forget the principles of conservatism, political or fiscal. The Dems are supposed to be tax and spend? The Republicans in the last 8 years have become the party of spend and spend and let the great-grandchildren figure out how to pay the bill.

    The Republicans openly stand for the interests of the corporate oligarchy and the rest of the people be damned. The Republicans want government by and for the corporations. Money talks, and that’s it. They don’t give a flying fig about education, the constitution or anything else that is not connected with the rich getting richer and to hell with anyone else.

    “Small government” to the Republicans means no regulation of anything, basically a return to lassiez faire capitalism. Nothing would please them more than to reduce society to Dickensian circumstances. Dickensian? No. Medieval. The corporations want us all to become serfs to them and the Republicans support that view.

    The Dems are little better. Both parties slop from the hog trough of unbridled corporate influence. And Amercans sit on their fat asses guzzling beer and watching NASCAR while the constitution is reduced to toilet paper by the Bush administration.

    They have sucked up to the crypto-nazi bible spouting hypocritical scum of the religious right and are willing to enforce the goals of these mindless fools on everyone to. Separation of church and state is a tool of the devil, right?

    The premise of the war in Iraq was based on lies. The reason for it was for war profiteering. Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater – the new Praetorian guard, the American SS – and legions of crooked contractors are looting America with the express approval of the Republicans.

    Unless things change rapidly and for the better, we’re screwed in a big big way.

    As to the content of the video, “To tell the truth in a time of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” George Orwell.

  224. negentropyeater says

    As to the content of the video, “To tell the truth in a time of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” George Orwell.

    Excellent !

  226. Ellis D. Tripp says

    “Of course, “George Orwell” was a pseudonym…. *cough*”

    Yes, but who would know Eric Arthur Blair?

    More and more life is simply a series of absurd moments punctuated by irony…and the occasional paradox. ;-)

  228. Jane Browning says

    For crying out loud, doesn’t anybody have a sense of humor anymore???

  229. Ralph Davis says

    Yea, I’m voting republican because of crapt like this you tube video. As I see it, dems are misfits who march in gay rights parades for the rights to enjoy “fisting”, oral-anal sex, bath houses for giving multiple bj’s to spread aids, steal childhood from preteens by teaching how to put condoms on banans and birth control without parental consent, and want obama for president who voted for partial birth abortion and cares little for the the right of an innocent and helpless unborn child to be born.

    dems are ignorant to believe the lie that the democratic party is the party of color. After 50 years are people of color any better off on welfare and their system that rewards failure?

    America needs a strong military to defeat the twisted goals of terrorist who deny every freedom America stands for. dems love their freedoms but don’t think how to save them by keeping Armed Forces strong. clintons devasted our strength and ignored bin-laden and the multiple murderous attacks bringing 9-11.

    If you are black or gay, I stand with you against hatred, I am your brother and would not let a racist or bigot harm you. However because you are of color or different sexual values, do not expect any different treatment than I would a white person or hetersexual. I earn my own money, no one gives it to me and I object dems wanting to raise taxes for me to pay for your health insurance or permanent public housing. No matter the color, white or black, work! Assitance for the infirm, absolutely! Social security for illegals? another dem dumb idea to steal our hard earned money.

    As for drugs dealers, men fathering babies with no responsibility, and the culture that promotes deadbeats, porn and hollywood anti authority, this is who the dems want to give freedoms to, to drag down all of us to their level of misery.

    Laugh and disdain my email. I mean no one harm. I just want life in the USA to be on one playing field of people not of color, sexual orientation, but moral values….

  231. MAJeff, OM says

    If you are black or gay, I stand with you against hatred, I am your brother and would not let a racist or bigot harm you.

    Liar.

  232. Ellis D. Tripp says

    Ralph Davis said: “clintons devasted our strength and ignored bin-laden and the multiple murderous attacks
    bringing 9-11.”

    Aside from the fact that the author of this post is at best ill-educated, semi-literate and watches too much Fox News (which lowers your IQ by ten points for every hour you watch of it) all of which are excellent qualifications to be/vote Republican nowadays), most likely a latent or closeted homosexual (another good Republican qualification as of late…), he is also poorly informed.

    The Clinton administration actually had a functioning state department, something the Bush administration has failed to achieve in 8 years. Clinton’s state department kept up what is called “back-channel” or “back-fence” dialog with sources close to the Islamic terrorists. It’s called keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. The outgoing Clinton state department gave Condoleeza Rice information that a large and spectacular action attack was forthcoming (look up the word, Ralph). This information was entirely ignored by the Bush White House and the attack went forward.

    Anyone who thinks we have been attacked because the nasty Islamists do not want us to be free is completely ignorant of history (more good reasons for being/voting Republican, a universal trait in the Bush White House). An examination of how the West in general and the U.S. in particular has behaved in and toward the Middle East is the reason.

    Can you say “imperialism” Ralph? That’s exactly WTF it is. We are in the middle East behaving like the Nazis did in Europe in the 30s/40s. We even have our own American SS that murders unarmed civilians with impunity: Blackwater, the American Einsatzgruppen.

    OK, Ralph. Go back to the WWF and NASCAR now.

  233. Oded says

    Hi, I’m talking from Israel, so obviously I’m not very keen on Rebublican/Democratic policies. However, I watched this video, obviously everything in it was supposed to be satire on how all their policies suck, but there was at least one item there I was strongly against – the first part, Walmart bit. I firmly support big shopping supermarkets, when they are beneficial to myself, I consider them the very best of capitalism. If they sell for much cheaper, and of similar quality, then it is a perfectly good thing!

    However, I don’t know what the video was actually satiring against? Do Republicans want to put some kind of law supporting these supermarkets? I would be very against that! One the absolutely most important things about democracy is a free market – meaning the government should not intervene in either direction! Neither for, or against the supermarkets (or the neighborhood stores). It is simply none of the government’s business.

  234. Nick Gotts says

    Oded,
    In a democracy, how far the government should intervene in business depends on what the majority vote for. If they vote for a highly interventionist government, then that’s what they should get. You don’t really seem to know what “democracy” means.