Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Some days I want to go talk about actual socialist ideas with some of these people, just to see if their heads explode when their minds are blown.

# ? Jan 17, 2012 04:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 17:03

Amalek: Jan 3, 2012

Bruce Leroy posted:

To contribute, here's an old one from notorious moron and piece of poo poo Dinesh D'Souza that I only recently encountered from a different lovely editorial that cited D'Souza's editorial as a source for historical facts.

Anyone with even cursory knowledge of 20th Century history might become apoplectic from even just the parts I bolded.

He spends so much time pointing out that crimes committed by Christians aren't necessarily crimes of Christianity, but he won't even broach the idea that the same could be true of atheists and atheism. Also, it's almost cute that he's so dumb and misinformed to think that Hitler was a "self-proclaimed atheist" and that Nazism was a "repudiation of Christianity."

Just replace Atheism with Communism and youve gotten a new totally original argument!

World War Two, started, perpetuated and carried out by mostly Christians, and yet communism (1 goverment) and Atheism (1 % of population?) get the blame.

Wow, world war two was like a godsend to christians. They do all the killing and people who have little to nothing to do with it get blamed, therefore at the same time excusing christians commiting genocide and destroying atheism AND communism as ideas worth pursuing. Brilliant !

# ? Jan 17, 2012 05:34

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Pope Guilty posted:

Some days I want to go talk about actual socialist ideas with some of these people, just to see if their heads explode when their minds are blown.

That's the funny thing about "socialism" for conservatives, they really don't know what it means, it's just a general pejorative for them.

It becomes a surrealist parody when you've got elderly people obviously on Medicare and Social Security bitching about Obama being a socialist and railing against healthcare reform making the nation socialist.

There was a funny part of the Freep thread a long while back where there were pictures and articles about Tea Party protests where elderly people were attending rallies in their mobility scooters that had been paid for by Medicaid. The level of irony was so palpable that I started to think it was some kind of orchestrated parody by comedians or performance artists.

Amalek posted:

Just replace Atheism with Communism and youve gotten a new totally original argument!

World War Two, started, perpetuated and carried out by mostly Christians, and yet communism (1 goverment) and Atheism (1 % of population?) get the blame.

Wow, world war two was like a godsend to christians. They do all the killing and people who have little to nothing to do with it get blamed, therefore at the same time excusing christians commiting genocide and destroying atheism AND communism as ideas worth pursuing. Brilliant !

Yeah, but communist regimes have been pretty terrible, too. Just think of all the people killed by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Those guys killed millions of people using the justification that the deaths were excusable (if not necessary) to advance communism and protect the state and proletariat from bourgeois attempts to undermine them and stomp on the average Joe communist. In those cases, communism is a pretty apt analogue to religion in the various cases of mass violence justified/motivated by individual faiths.

Atheism really stands on its own as a unique entity as there really hasn't been much (if any) in the way of violence (of any kind) "caused" by atheism, though it's likely because atheism is kind of inherently disorganized and without really any fervent beliefs. poo poo, there has been more violence perpetuated in the name of anarchism than atheism, which should tell you a lot.

What really gets me about that particular editorial by D'Souza is that there is some truth to it in that many violent episodes are more nuanced and complex than simply "religion did it," but he's purposely leaving religion out of the mix when the religion involved is Christianity and hypocritically oversimplifying cases where he thinks atheism is involved.

So, when it comes to Stalin killing millions of people, that's totally a crime of atheism and not the mix of communist authoritarianism and suppression of dissent combined with the paranoia and megalomania that come from a cult of personality. It's not that Mao and Stalin were crazy motherfuckers who were paranoid that their respective nations contained people who might be just like them and want the same power and control, causing them to persecute and kill large groups of people who dissented from their personal whims and ideologies. No, it must have been that they were supposedly atheists, that's what caused them to be tyrants.

# ? Jan 17, 2012 12:38

BlitzkriegOfColour: Aug 22, 2010

Bruce Leroy posted:

That's the funny thing about "socialism" for conservatives, they really don't know what it means, it's just a general pejorative for them.

It becomes a surrealist parody when you've got elderly people obviously on Medicare and Social Security bitching about Obama being a socialist and railing against healthcare reform making the nation socialist.

There was a funny part of the Freep thread a long while back where there were pictures and articles about Tea Party protests where elderly people were attending rallies in their mobility scooters that had been paid for by Medicaid. The level of irony was so palpable that I started to think it was some kind of orchestrated parody by comedians or performance artists.

Yeah, but communist regimes have been pretty terrible, too. Just think of all the people killed by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Those guys killed millions of people using the justification that the deaths were excusable (if not necessary) to advance communism and protect the state and proletariat from bourgeois attempts to undermine them and stomp on the average Joe communist. In those cases, communism is a pretty apt analogue to religion in the various cases of mass violence justified/motivated by individual faiths.

...

So, when it comes to Stalin killing millions of people, that's totally a crime of atheism and not the mix of communist authoritarianism and suppression of dissent combined with the paranoia and megalomania that come from a cult of personality. It's not that Mao and Stalin were crazy motherfuckers who were paranoid that their respective nations contained people who might be just like them and want the same power and control, causing them to persecute and kill large groups of people who dissented from their personal whims and ideologies. No, it must have been that they were supposedly atheists, that's what caused them to be tyrants.

Look I'm almost on your side (in that I hope D'Souza dies soon), but you can hardly say Stalin killed millions of people. Millions of Nazis, yes, and also a lot of people died from a famine, but why blame a leader for a natural disaster? Seriously, that's like saying President Bush killed people thousands of people by making Hurricane Katrina happen.

# ? Jan 17, 2012 13:50

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

Look I'm almost on your side (in that I hope D'Souza dies soon), but you can hardly say Stalin killed millions of people. Millions of Nazis, yes, and also a lot of people died from a famine, but why blame a leader for a natural disaster? Seriously, that's like saying President Bush killed people thousands of people by making Hurricane Katrina happen.

A lot of the blame for the famine comes from stupid, unscientific ideas about agriculture stemming from Stalin's embrace of Trofim Lysenko, whose inane ideas flattered the Communist leadership's ideals and who derided Darwin and Mendel as "uncommunist". (See also Nazi Germany's rejection of "Jewish science", not that I'm saying Nazi Germany and the USSR are alike.)

Myself, I'm always fascinated by how the millions of people who die early deaths from lovely working conditions and low pay aren't counted as having been murdered by capitalism.

# ? Jan 17, 2012 14:04

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

Look I'm almost on your side (in that I hope D'Souza dies soon), but you can hardly say Stalin killed millions of people. Millions of Nazis, yes, and also a lot of people died from a famine, but why blame a leader for a natural disaster? Seriously, that's like saying President Bush killed people thousands of people by making Hurricane Katrina happen.

The famine under Stalin was the result of policy, not nature. Please take some time to read up on Stalin,, the man was a mass murderer.

# ? Jan 17, 2012 14:07

Shasta Orange Soda: Apr 25, 2007

Bruce Leroy posted:

That's the funny thing about "socialism" for conservatives, they really don't know what it means, it's just a general pejorative for them.

It's not hard to understand the confusion. That word has meant a lot of things in the mainstream public consciousness, even over just the last few decades. 40 years ago, both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. called the Soviet Union a socialist country. Nowadays, the more common usage refers to mild social democracies like Norway, and sometimes even France and England. And then you have the libertarians who think that making people pay any taxes at all automatically equates to socialism. Which makes it all one big mess in the mind of someone not inclined to educate themselves with what amounts to some pretty dry reading when you live on a diet of attention-grabbing television.

And of course the media isn't interested in clearing up the confusion, only adding to it. A propagandist who can link any kind of progressive social policy with Joseph Stalin in the minds of his audience is never going to give up that golden goose.

# ? Jan 17, 2012 15:09

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

but you can hardly say Stalin killed millions of people. Millions of Nazis, yes,

Nazis are people, my friend.

In all seriousness though, you just literally dehumanized millions of war victims (hopefully you see the supreme irony in dehumanizing people for being Nazis). And you did this in defense of Joseph Stalin.

# ? Jan 17, 2012 21:35

King Dopplepopolos: Aug 3, 2007; Give us a raise, loser!

IIRC, weren't millions of people also killed during Stalin's Great Purges? I think those started well before the war, though.

# ? Jan 17, 2012 22:51

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

King Dopplepopolos posted:

IIRC, weren't millions of people also killed during Stalin's Great Purges? I think those started well before the war, though.

Yes. He starved half of Ukraine to death as a matter of policy.

# ? Jan 18, 2012 00:10

BlitzkriegOfColour: Aug 22, 2010

King Dopplepopolos posted:

IIRC, weren't millions of people also killed during Stalin's Great Purges? I think those started well before the war, though.

Purges are necessary as part of the great work. I didn't really want to get into this, but how is one supposed to lead the common man to enlightenment when reactionaries full of greed and lust for the status quo are equipped to fight progress?

As for the policy argument, can anyone show me a primary source stating that the famine was intentional?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jan 18, 2012 04:36

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

Purges are necessary as part of the great work. I didn't really want to get into this, but how is one supposed to lead the common man to enlightenment when reactionaries full of greed and lust for the status quo are equipped to fight progress?

As for the policy argument, can anyone show me a primary source stating that the famine was intentional?

Are you loving kidding me? The Soviet purges were "necessary?"

No, the purges were not about preventing reactionaries and capitalists from conspiring to undermine communism and abuse the proletariat, they were intended to eliminate all dissent, even from other communists. poo poo, Stalin would literally rewrite history by having dissenters eliminated from books, photos, and paintings after he killed them or sent them to gulags. Shortly before he died, Stalin was planning another purge of educated Jews (doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.) because he was convinced that they were conspiring against him and the USSR, especially since several of his doctors overseeing him in his deteriorating health were Jewish.

Communist purges are not about protecting communism, the proletariat, and/or the state, they are intended to stifle dissent of all kinds that criticize the party oligarchy and to deflect criticism upon the dissenters so that the oligarchy can redirect all public criticism and unrest which threatens their strangleholds on their nations.

As for the Holodomor, it was certainly not due to natural causes but there is some debate among historians about the malevolence behind it, comparable to the debate over the Holocaust about intentionalism vs. functionalism. At the very least, the Holodomor was a result of incredibly poor management that raises all those millions of Ukrainian deaths to the level of criminally negligent homicide, especially since the Soviets prevented the starving Ukrainians from fleeing the country during the famine and severely punished them when they were unable to live up to the plans and demands of the Soviet government.

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

Look I'm almost on your side (in that I hope D'Souza dies soon), but you can hardly say Stalin killed millions of people. Millions of Nazis, yes, and also a lot of people died from a famine, but why blame a leader for a natural disaster? Seriously, that's like saying President Bush killed people thousands of people by making Hurricane Katrina happen.

So, Nazis, Nazi collaborators, and basically anyone who lived in a country formerly occupied by Nazis were not people?

You're either a terrible troll or a terrible, ignorant person.

# ? Jan 18, 2012 05:02

BlitzkriegOfColour: Aug 22, 2010

Bruce Leroy posted:

Are you loving kidding me? The Soviet purges were "necessary?"

No, the purges were not about preventing reactionaries and capitalists from conspiring to undermine communism and abuse the proletariat, they were intended to eliminate all dissent, even from other communists. poo poo, Stalin would literally rewrite history by having dissenters eliminated from books, photos, and paintings after he killed them or sent them to gulags. Shortly before he died, Stalin was planning another purge of educated Jews (doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.) because he was convinced that they were conspiring against him and the USSR, especially since several of his doctors overseeing him in his deteriorating health were Jewish.

Communist purges are not about protecting communism, the proletariat, and/or the state, they are intended to stifle dissent of all kinds that criticize the party oligarchy and to deflect criticism upon the dissenters so that the oligarchy can redirect all public criticism and unrest which threatens their strangleholds on their nations.

As for the Holodomor, it was certainly not due to natural causes but there is some debate among historians about the malevolence behind it, comparable to the debate over the Holocaust about intentionalism vs. functionalism. At the very least, the Holodomor was a result of incredibly poor management that raises all those millions of Ukrainian deaths to the level of criminally negligent homicide, especially since the Soviets prevented the starving Ukrainians from fleeing the country during the famine and severely punished them when they were unable to live up to the plans and demands of the Soviet government.

So, Nazis, Nazi collaborators, and basically anyone who lived in a country formerly occupied by Nazis were not people?

You're either a terrible troll or a terrible, ignorant person.

I find your complete lack of evidence for your assertions rather telling.

# ? Jan 18, 2012 05:18

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

I find your complete lack of evidence for your assertions rather telling.

By the same token, support your assertions that "you can hardly say Stalin killed millions of people" and that the Holodomor was a "natural disaster."

# ? Jan 18, 2012 05:23

BlitzkriegOfColour: Aug 22, 2010

Bruce Leroy posted:

By the same token, support your assertions that "you can hardly say Stalin killed millions of people" and that the Holodomor was a "natural disaster."

The facts that are known: people died from a famine. Famines happen, it's a natural disaster when famines happen - due to crop failure, bad harvests, etc. Anything more than that is merely speculation.

# ? Jan 18, 2012 05:31

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

The facts that are known: people died from a famine. Famines happen, it's a natural disaster when famines happen - due to crop failure, bad harvests, etc. Anything more than that is merely speculation.

You are aware that famines often happen for reasons other than weather, right?

E.g. famine in Darfur caused by the conflict there and famine in Zimbabwe caused by Mugabe's land "reforms."

So, just noting that a famine happened doesn't imply that the famine was caused by natural forces like adverse weather.

# ? Jan 18, 2012 05:56

Tacky-Ass Rococco: Sep 7, 2010; by R. Guyovich

Oh goody, a literal Stalinist itt.

# ? Jan 18, 2012 06:20

BlitzkriegOfColour: Aug 22, 2010

Bruce Leroy posted:

You are aware that famines often happen for reasons other than weather, right?

E.g. famine in Darfur caused by the conflict there and famine in Zimbabwe caused by Mugabe's land "reforms."

So, just noting that a famine happened doesn't imply that the famine was caused by natural forces like adverse weather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#Natural_reasons posted:

... Western historian Dr. Mark Tauger, who concluded that the famine was not fundamentally "man-made".[77][78] He says that rustic plant disease, rather than drought, was the cause of the famine. The most that can be said of the contribution of human actions is that draft shortages, lack of labor, systemic economic problems, mismanagement, and peasant resistance exacerbated the crop failures already created by natural disasters.[24]

quote:

Another factor in the decline of the harvests was that the shortage of draft power for plowing and reaping was even more acute in 1932 than in the previous year. The number of working horses declined from 19.5 million on July 1, 1931 to 16.2 million on July 1, 1932. The efforts to replace horses by tractors failed to compensate for this loss. In 1931, the total supply of tractors for agriculture amounted to 578,000 hp (431 MW), with 393,000 hp (293 MW) produced at home and 578,000 hp (431 MW) imported. But in 1932, because of the foreign trade crisis and home producing establishing, no tractors were imported.[83] In the whole of 1932, tractors supplied 679,000 hp (506 MW) to agriculture, considerably less than in 1931. Only about half became available in time for the harvest, and even less in time for the spring sowing. Animal draft power deteriorated in quality. Horses were fed and maintained even more inadequately than in the previous year.[83] The acute shortage of horses led to the decision to employ cows as working animals. According to the speech of one Soviet official at one of the most affected by famine region, the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, "in 1932 we employ only 9000 cows, but in 1933 we involve at least 3/4 of their total number; 57000 employed at sowing."[84] On February 23, the Lower Volga party bureau decided to use 200,000 cows for special field work.

So it would appear as though, rather than trying to exacerbate the famine, the authorities were actually trying to avert poor harvests at all measures? Wow, what murderous bastards!

BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Jan 18, 2012

# ? Jan 18, 2012 06:21

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

So it would appear as though, rather than trying to exacerbate the famine, the authorities were actually trying to avert poor harvests at all measures? Wow, what murderous bastards!

Ooh, ooh, I can selectively quote wikipedia, too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor

wikipedia posted:

Deliberately engineered or Continuation of civil war

During the 1930s, the Soviet Union was dominated by Joseph Stalin, who sought to reshape Soviet society with aggressive economic planning. As the leader of the Soviet Union, he constructed a massive bureaucracy that was responsible for millions of deaths as a result of repressive policies. During his time as leader of the Soviet Union, Stalin made frequent use of his secret police, prisons, and nearly unlimited power to reshape Soviet society.

A campaign of political repression, including arrests, deportations, and executions of better-off peasants and their families occurred from 1929�1932. The richer peasants were labeled kulaks and considered class enemies. More than 1.8 million peasants were deported in 1930�1931.[8][9] [10] The stated purpose of the campaign was to fight the counter-revolution and build socialism in the countryside. This policy was accomplished simultaneously with collectivization in the Soviet Union and effectively brought all agriculture in the Soviet Union under state control.

The "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" was announced by Stalin on December 27, 1929.[8] The decision was formalized in a resolution, "On measures for the elimination of kulak households in districts of comprehensive collectivization", on January 30, 1930. The kulaks were divided into three categories: those to be shot or imprisoned as decided by the local secret political police; those to be sent to Siberia, North, the Urals, or Kazakhstan, after confiscation of their property; and those to be evicted from their houses and used in labour colonies within their own districts.[8]

The combination of the elimination of kulaks, collectivization, and other repressive policies contributed to mass starvation in many parts of the Soviet Union and the death of at least 14.5 million peasants in 1930�1937.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

wikipedia posted:

Causes
Main article: Causes of the Holodomor

The reasons for the famine are a subject of scholarly and political debate. Some scholars suggest that the famine was a consequence of the economic problems associated with economic changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialization.[18][19][22][23][45] However, it has been suggested by other historians that the Soviet leadership used the famine to attack Ukrainian nationalism and thus may fall under the legal definition of genocide.[17][18][19][20][21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Genocide_question

wikipedia posted:

Dr. Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam argues that, in addition to deportations, internment in the Gulag and shootings (See: Law of Spikelets), there is some evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry.[85] He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths), as well as the attitude of the Stalinist regime in 1932�33 (that many of those starving to death were "counterrevolutionaries", "idlers" or "thieves" who fully deserved their fate). Based on this analysis he concludes, however, that the actions of Stalin's authorities against Ukrainians do not meet the standards of specific intent required to proof genocide as defined by the UN convention (the notable exception is the case of Kuban Ukrainians).[86] Ellman further concluded that if the relaxed definition of genocide is used, the actions of Stalin's authorities do fit such a definition of genocide.[86] However, this more relaxed definition of genocide makes the latter the common historical event, according to Ellman.[86]

wikipedia posted:

West Virginia University professor Dr Mark Tauger claims that any analysis that asserts that the harvests of 1931 and 1932 were not extraordinarily low and that the famine was a political measure intentionally imposed through excessive procurements is based on an insufficient source base and an uncritical approach to the official sources.[91] Other scholars, such as Dr. David Marples, professor of history at the University of Alberta, have been critical of Tauger's claims.[94] Wheatcroft states Tauger's view represents the opposite extreme in arguing the famine was totally accidental.[95]

# ? Jan 18, 2012 08:29

Shasta Orange Soda: Apr 25, 2007

How did you manage to pull quotes off Wikipedia two hours after they shut down their site for SOPA?

# ? Jan 18, 2012 10:35

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Shasta Orange Soda posted:

How did you manage to pull quotes off Wikipedia two hours after they shut down their site for SOPA?

Pfft, wouldn't you like to know, muggle?

Google cache :ssh:

# ? Jan 18, 2012 10:48

Amarkov: Jun 21, 2010

Bruce Leroy posted:

Pfft, wouldn't you like to know, muggle?

Google cache

Or mobile internet, or just turn off automatic redirect/javascript

# ? Jan 18, 2012 10:51

RPZip: Feb 6, 2009; WORDS IN THE HEART
CANNOT BE TAKEN

Amarkov posted:

Or mobile internet, or just turn off automatic redirect/javascript

You can even just load the page and then hit the stop button before it redirects you to the black screen.

# ? Jan 18, 2012 15:51

King Dopplepopolos: Aug 3, 2007; Give us a raise, loser!

Jack of Hearts posted:

Oh goody, a literal Stalinist itt.

Perhaps he's an LF refugee or a McCaine alt.

# ? Jan 18, 2012 16:17

Teriyaki Hairpiece: Dec 29, 2006; I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.

e: Here's a good one.

quote:

JUDGE NOT

Yes, what the Marines did to the dead Taliban was wrong, but this government and those in command need to take a step back. War affects people differently, and if you spend a period of time in combat you may do things that are strange or out of place. Combat does that and people need to realize that. You are dealing with people who are trying to kill you and after going through that for a period of time you may do strange things.

# ? Jan 21, 2012 20:59

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

War is hell, man, we'll never know...

*pisses on a corpse while his buddies laugh him on*

# ? Jan 21, 2012 21:06

Mr. Funny Pants: Apr 9, 2001

Glitterbomber posted:

War is hell, man, we'll never know...

*pisses on a corpse while his buddies laugh him on*

I'd actually understand what they did more if it had been on living people. It still would have been disgusting and idiotic and wrong, but it makes sense in the, "Haha, we're doing something to you that you don't like," way.

But they're dead. There's not much better way of getting over on someone than killing them. You won dude, we get it.

"You know, I thought you punked me when you shot me in the head, but it wasn't until you pissed on me that I said, 'Touche'. Well played chaps."

# ? Jan 21, 2012 23:32

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Well both are foul and despicable, but yea at least some freak pissing on a PoW can be all "I WAS GETTIN REVENGE! WAR IS HELL!", I don't even know how you defend corpse desecration, but the right found a way.

# ? Jan 21, 2012 23:39

PainBreak: Jun 9, 2001

The Corpus Christi Caller Times is a cesspool of terrible writing, but the letters to the editor really take the cake. Sometimes, it's hard to believe people sign their names to these.

http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jan/20/letters-to-the-editor-012012/

Frank Taylor

Poor argument against sonograms

Re: Caller-Times' editorial on Jan. 12 opposing required sonograms before abortions.

I guess I didn't get the memo appointing you guardian of the women of Texas. For your information, the women of Texas make up a majority of registered voters in the state and no legislator, governor or attorney general can hold office against their will.

If the state leaders you denigrate are displeasing to women, they hardly need any help from you to do something about them.

The people of Texas, male and female, have a right to make laws governing abortion in this state. Their elected representatives, male and female, have the right and the duty to enact laws that reflect the will of their constituents and not that of self-righteous newspaper editors. You, evidently, would like to overturn the democratically expressed will of the people with the usual liberal artifice of legislation from the bench.

As for the case you make against required sonograms, it is laughable. If the women required to take the sonograms are so well-informed, why are they pregnant with an unwanted child in the first place?

You make much of the inconvenience of sonograms to pregnant women. Apparently, the gruesome deaths inflicted on the babies they are carrying don't bother you at all. Nor does the well documented post-abortion emotional distress and guilt suffered by many of the women you purport to speak for.

With guardians like you, who needs enemies?

Emphasis mine.

# ? Jan 22, 2012 01:22

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

PainBreak posted:

Frank Taylor

Poor argument against sonograms

Re: Caller-Times' editorial on Jan. 12 opposing required sonograms before abortions.

I guess I didn't get the memo appointing you guardian of the women of Texas. For your information, the women of Texas make up a majority of registered voters in the state and no legislator, governor or attorney general can hold office against their will.

If the state leaders you denigrate are displeasing to women, they hardly need any help from you to do something about them.

The people of Texas, male and female, have a right to make laws governing abortion in this state. Their elected representatives, male and female, have the right and the duty to enact laws that reflect the will of their constituents and not that of self-righteous newspaper editors. You, evidently, would like to overturn the democratically expressed will of the people with the usual liberal artifice of legislation from the bench.

As for the case you make against required sonograms, it is laughable. If the women required to take the sonograms are so well-informed, why are they pregnant with an unwanted child in the first place?

You make much of the inconvenience of sonograms to pregnant women. Apparently, the gruesome deaths inflicted on the babies they are carrying don't bother you at all. Nor does the well documented post-abortion emotional distress and guilt suffered by many of the women you purport to speak for.

With guardians like you, who needs enemies?

They make a good point. Emotional distress can often follow terminating a pregnancy. Perhaps the answer is more stigmatization and guilt?

# ? Jan 22, 2012 05:29

ts12: Jul 24, 2007

quote:

Leonard Pitts wrong; �three strikes� laws keeping blacks in jail
Letter to the Editor, Jan. 20

Regarding Sunday�s Leonard Pitts column: I was particularly intrigued by the statement �white Americans are far and away the nation�s biggest dealers and users of illegal drugs, African-Americans are far and away the ones most likely to be jailed for drug crimes.�

Of course more whites use more drugs, there are five times as many whites in the general population than blacks.

So the real question here is, why is it that about 1 percent of the white male population is incarcerated and approximately 10 percent of the black male population is incarcerated? Would he suggest that law enforcement is that biased?

In 1980 the incarceration rate began to rise. This coincides with the Reagan years and the nation�s �war on drugs.� This escalation continued until today, where we have the highest number of people ever behind bars.

If you look at the statistics, you will see that all violent crimes peaked in the early 1990s and have been dropping ever since, regardless of economic conditions; 2010 was the safest year to be in America since 1970. Why?

As of 2009, 28 states had enacted �three strikes and your out� laws. Most of these laws were enacted from 1993 to 1996. Are you beginning to see the correlation here? Habitual offenders are behind bars now! The streets are safer for all of us.

To say the war on drugs �amounts to a war on African-American men, and more to the point, to a racial caste system nearly as restrictive, oppressive, and omnipresent as Jim Crow itself� is just blatantly false.

If a sensible person looks at the facts and statistics that I loosely applied above, they can only come to one conclusion. African-Americans are repeat offenders of all crimes (not just drugs) and white Americans are not. This is the main reason why they are incarcerated at a higher rate.

Mike Kantor

Bradenton

# ? Jan 22, 2012 05:47

Monday_: Feb 18, 2006; Worked-up silent dork without sex ability seeks oblivion and demise.; The Great Twist

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/14/america-is-drunk/?intcmp=obinsite

Fox News posted:

America is drunk
by Dr. Keith Ablow

According to the Centers for Disease Control, we�re becoming a nation of drunks. Booze hounds on benders.

New data reveals that one in every six Americans downs eight mixed drinks within a few hours, four times a month. Twenty-eight percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 binge-drink five times a month, putting away seven drinks in one sitting. And 13 percent of those between the ages of 45 and 65 binge drink five times a month, too.

News of the magnitude of this intoxication�resulting in frequently and dramatically altered states of consciousness for tens of millions of Americans�is no different than if we were to learn that a quarter of our young people were snorting half-a-gram of cocaine more than once-a-week or injecting heroin on that schedule. The psychological/cognitive effects of seven or eight drinks are no less intense, and, possibly, even more dramatic.

Think about that: A significant portion of our population wants to not be present for significant portions of every single week.

This is what is happening. It is critical we determine why it is happening.

My theory is that Americans are on a flight from reality. Faced with painful facts�including the precarious state of the economy, the gathering storm represented by militant Muslims, in general, and Iran, in particular, the crumbling state of marriage in this country, the fact that our borders are being overrun, and the fact that our health care insurance system is in shambles (to name just a smattering of the troubles we desperately need to address)�we as a nation are drinking, drugging, gambling, smoking, Facebooking, YouTubing, Marijuaning, Kardashianing, Adderalling, Bono-ing (as in thinking of Chaz�s sad flight from reality as good), Prozacking, Twittering, and Sexting ourselves into oblivion.

The fact that we are doing this as a culture is the single most ominous psychological trend we have ever faced. I am not exaggerating.

Unchecked, it will literally create an absentee nation, unable to summon real vision to confront real threats, unable to summon real courage to defeat real enemies, unable to buckle down and take the tough measures necessary to restore real economic stability, unable to tell our friends that we will defend them�if necessary, to the death.

Because drunks have no capacity to tolerate suffering or to see the future clearly or to summon extraordinary creativity from deep inside themselves or to stand up and double down with courage that resonates as so completely real, so entirely sober, that our adversaries buckle at the knees.

See, when you drug yourself five or ten percent of your life, that experience (or rather non-experience) can contaminate the rest of your life, too. Because suppressing your truth�including your anxiety and your resolve�for one day in 7 days is enough to tip the balance of your thinking away from introspection, away from insight and away from real involvement with others and the world around you.

More laws could never solve this problem, by the way. A new Prohibition wouldn�t stem the tide of the clear desire of a significant percentage of Americans to anesthetize themselves a significant portion of their lives. The only antidote is the decisiveness of individuals to live their lives, to be present and to count�for real.

It�s time America detoxed. Our future is uncertain, yet our prospects as great as the day God first blessed America. That may want plenty of people to go on a bender. I pray it makes more people want to sober up.

You've heard it here first, folks. Americans love the sauce because of Muslims and illegal immigrants.

Also, alcoholics/addicts cannot be creative. Hemingway, Poe, Hendrix, Cobain, Jackson Pollock, Michael Jackson... none of these people ever summoned extraordinary creativity from deep inside themselves.

# ? Jan 22, 2012 19:10

Slaan: Mar 16, 2009; ASHERAH DEMANDS I FEAST, I VOTE FOR A FEAST OF FLESH

Well, it makes sense. All those Muhammadins and Catholic Mexicans are allergic to alcohol. It is the only defense us True Patriots have against their God Hating evils. :911:

# ? Jan 22, 2012 20:16

redmercer: Sep 15, 2011; by Fistgrrl

jetgrindeggy posted:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/14/america-is-drunk/?intcmp=obinsite

You've heard it here first, folks. Americans love the sauce because of Muslims and illegal immigrants.

Also, alcoholics/addicts cannot be creative. Hemingway, Poe, Hendrix, Cobain, Jackson Pollock, Michael Jackson... none of these people ever summoned extraordinary creativity from deep inside themselves.

You copied all those words and missed the best ones:

quote:

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com. His team of Life Coaches can be reached at lifecoach@keithablow.com.

If you drink or take drugs you can't think for yourself! So take some responsibility and hire one of my life coaches!

# ? Jan 22, 2012 21:49

redmercer: Sep 15, 2011; by Fistgrrl

*beep*Go check your mail! I wanna see some hustle down to the post office!

# ? Jan 22, 2012 21:50

redmercer: Sep 15, 2011; by Fistgrrl

Just got offa work, thinking about having a cold one *phone rings* *beeeep* YOU WERE THINKING OF HAVING A BEER, WEREN'T YOU? I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO WORK MORE ON YOUR POETRY. I WANT TO SEE THIRTY LINES, IAMBIC, ON THE DOUBLE! DON'T THINK ABOUT EASING THE PAIN!

# ? Jan 22, 2012 21:53

Limbo: Oct 4, 2006

This is the same Dr Ablow who thinks that Newt's multiple infidelities just show how likable he is, right?

# ? Jan 22, 2012 22:16

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

These are from the New York Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fracking-lies-triumphed-article-1.1009485

Fracking apparently is a good thing regardless of the evidence

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/sopa-people-article-1.1009499
SOPA and PIPA are also good things.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/yes-bloomberg-bonus-article-1.1009287
Teacher agrees, yeah gently caress teachers

Im so disappointed in the Daily News I remember when the didn't use to be terrible

# ? Jan 22, 2012 22:52

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

redmercer posted:

Just got offa work, thinking about having a cold one *phone rings* *beeeep* YOU WERE THINKING OF HAVING A BEER, WEREN'T YOU? I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO WORK MORE ON YOUR POETRY. I WANT TO SEE THIRTY LINES, IAMBIC, ON THE DOUBLE! DON'T THINK ABOUT EASING THE PAIN!

Sounds like a job for a lambic.

# ? Jan 22, 2012 22:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 16, 2024 17:03

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Limbo posted:

This is the same Dr Ablow who thinks that Newt's multiple infidelities just show how likable he is, right?

For those who are curious about what Limbo is speaking of:

Fox News posted:

Newt Gingrich's three marriages mean he might make a strong president -- really

By Dr. Keith Ablow

Former Speaker of the House and Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was attacked Thursday in an interview on ABC News by his second wife Marianne. She accused him of beginning an affair with his current wife Callista while Marianne and he were still married (which Mr. Gingrich admits). She also accused him of lobbying her for an open marriage that would allow him to continue seeing Callista without getting divorced (a claim Gingrich denies).

Well, in any case, no open marriage was in the offing, and the Speaker married his current and third wife.

As I have written before for Fox News Opinion, I don�t think voters belong in a candidate�s bedroom. But the media can�t seem to help itself from trying to castrate candidates for the prurient pleasure of the public.

I will tell you what Mr. Gingrich�s personal history actually means for those of us who want to right the economy, see our neighbors and friends go back to work, promote freedom here and abroad and defeat the growing threat posed by Iran and other evil regimes.

First, one note on what Mr. Gingrich�s married life, including his history of infidelity does not mean: It does not mean that Mr. Gingrich would be unfaithful to the United States of America or the Constitution of the United States.

You can take any moral position you like about men and women who cheat while married, but there simply is no correlation, whatsoever�from a psychological perspective�between whether they can remain true to their wedding vows and whether they can remain true to the Oath of Office.

I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich�s behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here�s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude�psychologically�from Mr. Gingrich�s behavior during his three marriages:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we�ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we�ll want to let him go after one.

4) Two women�Mr. Gingrich�s first two wives�have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

5) Mr. Gingrich�s daughters from his first marriage are among his most vigorous supporters. They obviously adore him and respect him and feel grateful for the kind of father he was.

When I want to know who in a marriage (or, for that matter, a series of marriages) is the one who actually was aligned with their best interests, I never dismiss evidence of who the children gravitate toward and admire. In this case, they have judged the father who left their family, then remarried twice. And they judge him 10 out of 10. I only hope my own children love me and respect me as much when they are adults.

So, as far as I can tell, judging from the psychological data, we have only one real risk to America from his marital history if Newt Gingrich were to become president: We would need to worry that another nation, perhaps a little younger than ours, would be so taken by Mr. Gingrich that it would seduce him into marrying it and becoming its president. And I think that is exceedingly unlikely.

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team. Dr. Ablow can be reached at info@keithablow.com. His team of Life Coaches can be reached at lifecoach@keithablow.com.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/20/newt-gingrichs-three-marriages-mean-might-make-strong-president-really/#ixzz1kEwo8PTk

My favorite part is how he think that Gingrich's kids siding with him and against his second wife has to do with how much they love and approve of him rather than them hating the woman who broke up their parents' marriage.

The fact that Ablow can't see/admit what a classic narcissist (and possible sociopath) Gingrich is shows just how terrible a psychiatrist he is.

# ? Jan 23, 2012 02:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »