Tag Archives: asinine

Mangling, Mishandling, and Misrepresentation of Science in the Plan B Debate (Part I)

9 Replies

In an effort to inform people that the Journal of Medical Ethics needs greater scrutiny in the peer review process, I’ve been scouring the net for mentions of "rhythm method", "Plan B", "embryo death", "Bovens", and related topics. In the process, I have come across some startling bad statements regarding the scientific study of fertility – on both sides of the political spectrum. Let’s start with some MSM headlines related to Bovens’ article about an alleged relationship between the "rhythm method" and embryo death.

Rhythm method kills more embryos than condom use
Controversial rhythm method study revealed
Rhythm method linked to massive embryonic death
How Vatican roulette kills embryos
‘Rhythm’ method a killer of embryos

Notice a trend in these headlines? They all assume two things: that Bovens published the results of a scientific study and that study clearly implicated the rhythm method with embryo deaths. IT’S NOT A STUDY! It’s a sloppy polemical essay. JME should be ashamed for publishing it.

In the wake of this publication, there have been numerous examples of folks showing a poor understanding of fertility and an unwillingness to be corrected. I am certainly no expert in fertility, but I have attempted to do my homework. If you believe my following observations are incorrect or misleading in any way, do not hesitate to let me know.

Continue reading →

Caesar Can Get Bent

4 Replies

[BSMETER.GIF]What a crock.

"Did you buy anything through the Internet last year without paying sales tax at the time? If you did, state tax collectors warn that you’d better say so by April 17 and write a check–or else."

"Online purchases from sites like Amazon.com and eBay may seem to arrive in a state of untaxed bliss. But the law actually requires shoppers to pay their own state’s sales tax rate–the concept is called a ‘use tax‘–and voluntarily cough up the exact amount owed each year at tax time."

"Tax bureaucrats for years have lamented the difficulty of collecting use taxes on catalog and mail order sales. Now, with online shopping growing rapidly and nearing $100 billion a year in consumer sales, tax collectors are adopting more aggressive tactics."

"New York state has added a line to income tax returns requiring all residents to calculate how much they should pay on Internet, mail order or out-of-state purchases. The threat is explicit: Anyone who creatively underestimates will face stiff penalties if an audit occurs."

If Amazon.com, et al., start charging sales tax, I won’t be thrilled, but it won’t stop me from buying from stores on the net.  Why isn’t that being done?  Expecting folks to tax themselves is asinine.

The Hyperventilating Left

11 Replies

Not that long ago, it was the right that was angry and the left that was, at least comparatively, polite.

Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha…

*whew* I haven’t laughed that hard in a long time. Since when has the Left ever been polite?!? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not patting the Right on the back here. In case you’ve forgotten, both sides piss me off. However, what I’ve noticed in my blogosphere travels, is that while both sides can be rude, obnoxious, and insensitive, it’s overwhelmingly those on the Left that use crude, filthy language to make their points.

"But after years of being the targets of inflammatory rhetoric, not only from fringe groups but also from such mainstream conservative politicians as Newt Gingrich, the left has gone on the attack. And with Republicans in control of Washington, they have much more to be angry about."

[…]

"To what, effect, though? Do the hundreds of thousands of daily visitors to Daily Kos, who sign their comments with phrases such as ‘Anger is energy,’ accomplish anything other than talking among themselves?…How about the 125,000 or so daily visitors to Eschaton? Or the thousands who visit Rude Pundit, the Smirking Chimp or My Left Wing?"

"Put another way, can one person sitting alone in a living room, typing her fingertips numb on a keyboard, make a difference?"

Not to me they can’t. They can’t change my mind on any issue if I won’t listen to them, and I won’t listen to them until they stop foaming at the mouth and cursing every other word.

"…O’Connor [of My Left Wing] describes a trip she took to Washington last September for a rally against the Iraq war. It was a ‘buoyant’ experience, she says, ‘exuberant,’ right up until the moment that the speakers onstage began yammering about things that had nothing to do with why they had gathered."

"Free Palestine? Free some death-row inmate? End global warming? ‘That was when I just freaking lost it,’ she says. ‘Shut up! Shut up!’ she remembers screaming into a bullhorn."

Now, there’s some anger I can identify with. It drove me nuts when the anti-war protest of ’03 in Pittsburgh was hijacked for women’s reproductive "rights". I hate mission creep.

"Meanwhile, over on Eschaton, Dave is writing, ‘As a matter of fact — I do hate Bush!’ On Rude Pundit: ‘George W. Bush is the anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to [expletive].’ On the Smirking Chimp: ‘I. Despise. These. [Expletive]!’"

That kind of purile ranting might be good for rallying other Lefties, but it’s not going to help them change minds or motivate folks (like me) in the middle. Give me intelligent, reasoned explanations of your points and I’ll listen. Go all Exorcist on me and you’ll get plonked.

If any of you frequent Lefty blogs whose authors aren’t rabid, let me know.  Don’t worry about plugging blogs on the Right.  Being a Christian blogger already puts me into contact with more Righty blogs than I can stomach.

Ugly People Are Unattentive Parents?

1 Reply

First we heard that ugly people commit more crime. Now we're being told that they're less attentive to their children than attractive people.

"'Unattractive parents are less likely than attractive parents to supervise their children closely,' said Andrew Harrell. He's the same social scientist who took a fair bit of heat last year when he presented evidence suggesting parents pay more attention to attractive children. Now he's onto new findings bound to stir up further familial feelings. 'The unattractive parents may be ugly because they have had economic difficulties, health problems, diabetes, poor eyesight, psychological and physical hardships that distract them,' Harrell offers as an explanation. 'They have their own personal concerns and they have less time to be attentive to their children. They are in such physical and psychological misery they are not there.' He admits his limited data can't prove the theory, since his team never interviewed the parents or children who were observed."

Can you say "junk science"?

Destruction of Capital

1 Reply

Via Dom Bettinelli:

“A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay at home and not to work – that is destruction of capital. If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at society’s expense, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge unpunished.” – Sharon Dijksma, a leading parliamentarian of the Dutch Labour Party

Dom sums up my feelings well.

“Yeah, because raising children is a selfish exercise that provides no benefit to society. Of course, this is the problem with socialized education since the socialists are then allowed to argue that since the government paid for something, they have a right to demand something in return. Where does this end? ‘We own you forever! Hahahaha!!'”

Commenter Ian raises an interesting counterpoint.

“I must agree with the Dutch to some extent. Consider: The Dutch invest in the education of their young (via exhorbitant taxes) to ostensibly increase the quality of their workforce. If the young accept that free education, they have an obligation to repay Caesar.”

I’d argue that they no obligation whatsoever. That’s what “free” means. IIRC, Germany has something more like what Ian is referring to. Every male citizen has a nine-month obligation to either be in the military or do civil service. If goverments wish something in return for education provided free of charge, they need to make it obligatory rather than whining when they don’t get back what they put in. To propose punishing stay-at-home moms is especially petty. Commenter Christian Martin explains.

“Children who get ‘primary caregiver’ attention from someone who loves them (as opposed to a paid employee) come out smarter and more productive in study after study than children who do not.”

“Furthermore, those who stay at home are more likely to have larger families, which will provide a future income base upon which to build the financial structure to assist this politician and his cronies when they reach retirement age.”

“Stay at home parents also provide for their children many of the services that otherwise would be paid for by the state, so the stay at home mom actually lowers society’s financial burden for things like education and healthcare.”