Wednesday morning links

There’s one thing about Panodrama that remains unclear. It was supposed to be live-streamed on Facebook during the Manchester rally, but the stream stopped dead early on. A backup YouTube stream also halted shortly thereafter. The film was switched to a new Facebook page, that feed, too, terminated mysteriously.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/sweeney-agonistes-tommy-robinson-turns-the-tables-on-the-bbc/

This is a tactic from the playbook of the old Soviet Union or Communist China. It's concerning to see the tactic is considered okay to employ here as well.

#1 feeblemind on 2019-02-27 09:00 (Reply)

And in more censorship news from the same day:

"Want to See" Rating for NPC-Fave Captain Marvel Plunges to 28%, So Rotten Tomatoes... Deletes The Entire Want-To-See Score From Every Movie On Its Site as a Favor to NPCs and Disney

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/379979.php

Yeah, Rotten Tomatoes are just movies, but the very title of the site implies one can be critical.

Apparently that may no longer be the case at Rotten Tomatoes as the censorship here illustrates.

It looks like our betters think censorship is a good thing and we should all embrace it for the common good.

#1.1 feeblemind on 2019-02-27 09:07 (Reply)

From one of Ace's commenters (and they're really the best): "Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off."

#1.1.1 Texan99 on 2019-02-27 09:54 (Reply)

From RealClearPolitics, interesting article about increases in the cost of municipal debt for counties that lose their local newspaper: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/study-when-local-newspaper-close-city-bond-finances-suffer/561422/

#1.1.2 Texan99 on 2019-02-27 10:08 (Reply)

While I try to avoid FB paranoia, I have seen some interesting things in my newsfeed. For example, yesterday the local Fox affiliate who I follow posted a story about a shooting involving two minorities. Instead of the usual summary caption for the link it was tagged 'For legal reasons this link is may not available...' even though the link worked just fine.

#1.2 Christopher B on 2019-02-27 09:41 (Reply)

feeblemind: This is a tactic from the playbook of the old Soviet Union or Communist China.

Facebook and YouTube are private companies and have the right to create a forum that is suitable for their target audience.

feeblemind: Apparently that may no longer be the case at Rotten Tomatoes as the censorship here illustrates.

Again, Rotten Tomatoes is a private company. In this case, the policy concerns comments about movies that people haven't even seen yet, with the comment sectoin being swarmed by a group unrepresentative of their target audience.

#1.3 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 10:16 (Reply)

We love censorship if it's the right kind of censorship.
You're welcome.

#1.3.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 10:23 (Reply)

Actually they don't given their original contracts' ToS. Also they've been subsidized by the government, and currently run as monopolies. Not to mention FCC reporting regulations.

So what's it like to be wrong?

Oh, and the VDH column provided plenty of links as to why you were wrong last week. You always are found out to be a liar.

#1.3.2 DrTorch on 2019-02-27 10:23 (Reply)

DrTorch: Actually they don't given their original contracts' ToS.

Terms of service are subject to change. Tommy Robinson was given multiple warnings. Of course, Robinson can sue, though not sure on what grounds.

#1.3.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 10:36 (Reply)

Free speech is not free speech if you've been warned.
Gee whiz.

#1.3.2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 11:00 (Reply)

Yup, and censorship isn't censorship if you're not a publisher if you get my drift and I think you do.

#1.3.2.1.1.1 Clownbots all the way down on 2019-02-27 11:40 (Reply)

Notably, you didn't address the point. Given the stunning mendacity, the guy you lied to should seriously consider permanently adjusting the pathologically-trolling clownbot demographic's terms of service at this lunch counter, so to put it.

Any of that sound familiar?

#1.3.2.1.2 Clownbots all the way down. on 2019-02-27 11:51 (Reply)

Herr Goebbels wasn't such a bad guy after all and also notably misunderstood in any case..

#1.3.2.1.2.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 12:31 (Reply)

Tis but piffle: Clownbots pride themselves on what Churchill called terminological inexactitude.

#1.3.2.1.2.1.1 Clownbots all the way down on 2019-02-27 12:39 (Reply)

Racism Against “Racists” Is Not Racism...
You're welcome.

#1.3.2.2 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 10:43 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Tommy Robinson: Facebook bans anti-Muslim activist: The offending material included posts urging people to “make war” on Muslims and to terrorise and behead those who follow the Quran.

#1.3.2.3 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 11:05 (Reply)

Taunting and offending white Christians and Jews in the most vile wayis like totes okay on FB .
In any case...

#1.3.2.3.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 11:14 (Reply)

Social media is like Standard Oil...they are vertically integrated and either buy out or squeeze out competitors. Much what Microsoft did to Netscape. Either bust them up into small companies or convert them to utilities like electric, phone, sewer and water.

#1.3.2.4 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-27 16:57 (Reply)

Zachriel Facebook and YouTube are private companies and have the right to create a forum that is suitable for their target audience.
Facebook and YouTube are private companies and have the right to create a forum that is suitable for their target audience.
That is not the point, Zach.

It is still the very same tactic totalitarians do to silence their critics, and in the case of social media it is done with tacit government approval. Instead of defending them Zach, you should be concerned as well. Some day it may be your opinion that is silenced. Once it is okay to censor one side, it is okay to censor the other.

With regard to your comment, Facebook and YouTube are private companies and have the right to create a forum that is suitable for their target audience.

I'll remember that line of thinking when I start banning certain demographics from my lunch counter.

#1.3.3 feeblemind on 2019-02-27 11:17 (Reply)

I reckon Clownbots know it's not the point, feebs. Clownbots know it's totalitarian. Clownbots probably approve.

This is why Clownbots deflect. Well, in this instance it's why. Why the gaslighting left is fundamentally dishonest and fundamentally destructive is a deeper issue.

#1.3.3.1 Clownbots all the way down. on 2019-02-27 11:38 (Reply)

feeblemind: It is still the very same tactic totalitarians do to silence their critics

Ah, Facebook is imprisoning people without benefit of law or trial for their speech. Had no idea.

feeblemind: I'll remember that line of thinking when I start banning certain demographics from my lunch counter.

Tommy Robinson is an individual, not a demographic. You are free to serve or not serve Tommy Robinson from your lunch counter.

#1.3.3.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 11:41 (Reply)

Do Clownbots even dream of electric integrity?

#1.3.3.2.1 Clownbots all the way down on 2019-02-27 11:47 (Reply)

Ah, the red herring gambit...
Make irrelevant shit up.

#1.3.3.2.2 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 12:09 (Reply)

Tommy Robinson is an individual, not a demographic. You are free to serve or not serve Tommy Robinson from your lunch counter.

Really? How many black individuals do you have to refuse to serve before you're racist? 1? 5? 10?

#1.3.3.2.3 Christopher B on 2019-02-27 12:40 (Reply)

Christopher B: How many black individuals do you have to refuse to serve before you're racist?

Under U.S. federal law, a plaintiff must prove intentional discrimination.

A famous case involves a landlord who coded rental applicants with "C" for color to ensure they didn't rent to African Americans.

#1.3.3.2.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 13:06 (Reply)

"Allegedly" and "consent decree", notably the kiddiez keep leaving that part out of their "famous case" strawman scenario.

#1.3.3.2.3.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 17:35 (Reply)

Answer the question.

Who cares that they noted the applicant was non-white. How many individuals need to be refused before it's discrimination?

I know you won't answer because admitting that Tommy Robinson doesn't belong to a 'protected class' would give the game away.

#1.3.3.2.3.1.2 Christopher B on 2019-02-27 18:53 (Reply)

Christopher: Who cares that they noted the applicant was non-white. How many individuals need to be refused before it's discrimination?

What you are asking about is called disparate impact. The number would depend on the total number of people being refused service, as well as the racial mixture of the neighborhood of the lunch counter. Liability would also depend on whether the business can show a legitimate reason for the disparity. See Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio.

Christopher: Tommy Robinson doesn't belong to a 'protected class'

If Tommy Robinson was discriminated against because of his race, rather than his eliminationist rhetoric, then he would be protected by U.K.'s Race Relations Acts.

#1.3.3.2.3.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-28 11:35 (Reply)

Human: Cancer sucks. It should be eradicated.
Z the Clownbot: Cancer is a natural condition.
Human: What are you, moronically obtuse?

#1.3.4 Clownbots all the way down on 2019-02-27 11:24 (Reply)

Re: infanticide

Sasse's bill shows how completely Demonrats are wedded to abortion, but I wonder if the bill had not mentioned abortion if they would have voted the same way. So would the Demonrats have voted for a bill that mandated medical care to all babies born alive?

My guess is that the results would have been the same.

#2 mudbug on 2019-02-27 09:51 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Three Democrats who voted against infanticide

‘Executing Babies’: Here Are the Facts Behind Trump’s Misleading Abortion Tweet: "a condition called pre-eclampsia, involving high blood pressure and other problems, can kill both mother and fetus, and in most cases the only treatment is to deliver the baby. If it seems unlikely that the baby will survive, the family may choose to provide just comfort care — wrapping and cuddling the baby — and allow the child to die naturally without extreme attempts at resuscitation.

"The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures"

#2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 10:12 (Reply)

Turns out Josef Mengele was a Democrat and not such a monster after all...

Free Kermit Gosnell.

#2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 10:30 (Reply)

"The bill would ALSO force doctors to care for an infant born alive, even if the parents did not want the infant to live". AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. It has zippo to do with the women's health. It endorses outright infanticide, period! Who speaks for the child? A living human being denied their constitutional rights. This is disgusting.

#2.1.2 Anon on 2019-02-27 10:39 (Reply)

Anon: It endorses outright infanticide, period!

No. It has to do with allowing a natural death in a baby that is terminal, period!

#2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 10:43 (Reply)

Organs harvested from a live baby bring quite a premium.

Gotta pay off that Lambo somehow.

#2.1.2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 11:05 (Reply)

"The bill would force doctors to resuscitate such an infant, even if the parents did not want those measures"

The bill clearly states:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

I am simply amazed that anyone could oppose this, let alone argue against it.

#2.1.3 Hank_M on 2019-02-27 11:09 (Reply)

Be amazed no more. Simply put, if President Trump opposed this bill Dems would find a reason to support it. Period.

#2.1.3.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 11:35 (Reply)

Hank_M: I am simply amazed that anyone could oppose this, let alone argue against it.

That you are amazed implies that the facts contradict your preconceptions.

You neglected to respond to the point.

#2.1.3.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 11:44 (Reply)

And y'all clearly neglected to clearly read the clear language of the bill.

#2.1.3.2.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 11:53 (Reply)

Correctomundo, notably. Sure!

#2.1.3.2.1.1 Clownbots all the way down on 2019-02-27 11:58 (Reply)

So noted... notably in any case.

#2.1.3.2.1.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 12:20 (Reply)

What point?

#2.1.3.2.2 Hank_M on 2019-02-27 12:35 (Reply)

See here, this is another tactic of ours: We sound the alarm on something that rarely ever happens; that thing in my womb has a condition that is life threatening to the mother and the thing in my womb, kill it! So we get everyone to focus on this minutia, and can affectively ignore all the other very sane arguments against our infanticide bill. When you point ou what the text of the bill actually says, we can circle back to our point: That thing in my womb is killing me, and you didn’t have an answer to that. The reasonable person would say, well isn’t there already laws on the books that allow for saving the mothers life? You just hate women. Want them to be fat dumb and pregnant. Misogynist!

#2.1.4 Zachismyhero on 2019-02-27 12:00 (Reply)

The Demonrats never mention the father's choice vis a vis a "woman's right to choose" so suggesting they are concerned about the parents' wishes is disingenuous.

The bill requires: "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age..."

But the parents' wishes the Demonrats seem so concerned about is their (actually the "mother's") wish that their child be dead.

So this is what the eternal Demonrat's bleating of "For the children..." is all about.

#2.1.5 mudbug on 2019-02-27 12:42 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Democratic Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon stunned reporters and audience members this week when she directly compared US Border Patrol Agents with those who simply “followed orders” from the Nazi regime during World War II.
Scanlon was speaking at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when she launched into her bizarre rant; saying “Just following orders is no more an excuse today than it was back in Germany.”

Ripping a child out of it's mothers arms at the border and ripping child out of a womb in a clinic are morally and ethically two different things apparently.

#2.1.5.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 12:49 (Reply)

That is correct! Only the State is qualified to determine which life is worth defending. Only the State is qualified to determine which group is worth hate crime status. Nothing before the State. All things are outlawed, unless specifically allowed by the State. Why it's American as apple pie. Didn't you read Jefferson, Adams, Washington, et.al, circa 1780's? They all said the exact same thing.

#2.1.5.1.1 B. Hammer on 2019-02-27 13:04 (Reply)

mudbug: The bill requires: "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age..."

Ignoring the point doesn't make it go away. Some babies are born with a terminal condition. The question families face is whether to sustain life artificially, or allow a natural death.

#2.1.5.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 13:08 (Reply)

Ignoring the plain text of the bill doesn't make it go away. It states that the baby should be treated like any other baby. A baby born after an abortion attempt with a health issue should be treated as though he was born intentionally with the same condition.

Demonrats didn't seem to be concerned about the health of the child but rather the "health" of the mother. “This bill is just another line of attack in the ongoing war on women’s health,” said Demonrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.

This is all just a continuation of the radical abortion policies of Andrew Cuomo and Ralph Northam (and others) where they support abortion up to the ninth month. Northam describes how that would work: the baby would be delivered and then a discussion between the parents and the doctors would ensue (about the death of the baby). So in order to preserve the possibility of full term abortions the life of the baby must be ignored.

#2.1.5.2.1 mudbug on 2019-02-27 14:20 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Ignoring the plain text of the bill doesn't make it go away

Yes it does if you throw out a red herring and notably complain that some theoretical "point" needs to be addressed first.

#2.1.5.2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 15:42 (Reply)

mudbug: Ignoring the plain text of the bill doesn't make it go away.

Cherry-picking language from the bill doesn't make a convincing argument. Instead of trying to understand the other point of view, you argue a strawman. The problem is that the bill is written in such a way that a family and their doctors may be forced to resuscitate a baby that is terminal, possibly prolonging suffering and death.

As we said, ignoring the point doesn't make it go away. Some babies are born with a terminal condition. The question families face is whether to sustain life artificially, or allow a natural death.

S. 130: "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age"

#2.1.5.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 17:05 (Reply)

Our strawman is better than your strawman.
Hilarious. Throw in the cherry picking thing.
That makes a better argument than actually addressing the point.

#2.1.5.2.1.2.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 19:03 (Reply)

Sasse's bill does NOT refer to babies born with a terminal condition. But you know that. It protects BABIES WHO ARE SERIOUSLY HARMED IN THE PROCESS OF AN ABORTION AND BORN ALIVE DESPITE THE ATTEMPT AT EXECUTION by abortion!! The baby is born alive. He or she is a living, breathing, US citizen who is entitled to protection and medical care. The bill would REQUIRE the necessary medical care be given. The Dems voted en masse to complete the child's execution by denying medical care.

#2.1.5.2.2 Pax78 on 2019-02-27 14:26 (Reply)

Pax78: Sasse's bill does NOT refer to babies born with a terminal condition.

That's right. It purposely ignores the issue, which is why it was opposed. The bill requires medical care for babies that are terminal, when palliative care may be more appropriate.

#2.1.5.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 17:08 (Reply)

We just keep making it up as we go along.
Here have some more red herring.
You're welcome.

#2.1.5.2.2.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 17:41 (Reply)

My God, that is murder. Truly shocking that is where the medical profession is now at, to just let a child die if it is not wanted by the parents and not give it medical care to survive. Shows the need for this law.

#2.1.6 Jim on 2019-02-27 13:14 (Reply)

Jim: My God, that is murder.

Uh, no. Allowing a person who is terminal to die a natural death is not murder by any reasonable definition.

Jim: Truly shocking that is where the medical profession is now at, to just let a child die if it is not wanted by the parents and not give it medical care to survive.

If the person is terminal, then it is not unreasonable to allow death to take its natural course without medical intervention. In the real world, these are decisions that families have to face every day.

#2.1.6.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 16:56 (Reply)

We get to make up what is and what is not a reasonable definition of murder.
You're welcome.

#2.1.6.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 19:10 (Reply)

Then let's narrow this down Zach. How about we say something like, "If a fetus is delivered alive, after an abortion is attempted - in cases where the mother's life is not in imminent danger - then the attending medical professionals shall treat that delivered fetus as a newborn baby and exercise all steps as would be performed had the mother chosen to carry the child to term to preserve the life of said baby." Would you be cool with that or do you want to argue the terminal condition let it take its course? In other words if you yourself were shot in the upper thigh, and suffered a severed femoral artery you are suffering from a terminal medical condition unless intervention occurs. Do you want someone to intervene? Has there been a crime committed if someone did that to you...or would you say the shot didn't kill you, it was the exsanguination - the natural result of a severed femoral artery?

#2.1.6.1.2 BornSouthern on 2019-02-27 22:36 (Reply)

At the moment of any live birth, every single infant is "terminal" unless provided with life-sustaining care.

You used to be an amusing internet diversion, like a carnival sideshow one could gawk at to kill a few minutes (“Oh look, what will they say next?").

But when you became an apologist for infanticide, your shtick took on a vile and filthy aspect that is anything but amusing.

#2.1.6.1.3 Thos. on 2019-02-28 00:48 (Reply)

BornSouthern: "If a fetus is delivered alive, after an abortion is attempted - in cases where the mother's life is not in imminent danger - then the attending medical professionals shall treat that delivered fetus as a newborn baby and exercise all steps as would be performed had the mother chosen to carry the child to term to preserve the life of said baby." Would you be cool with that or do you want to argue the terminal condition let it take its course?

No. It doesn't allow for when a baby is non-viable.

BornSouthern: In other words if you yourself were shot in the upper thigh, and suffered a severed femoral artery you are suffering from a terminal medical condition unless intervention occurs.

That's not what terminal medical condition means.

Thos: At the moment of any live birth, every single infant is "terminal" unless provided with life-sustaining care.

That is incorrect. A terminal condition is "an incurable and irreversible condition caused by injury, disease, or illness that would cause death within a reasonable period of time in accordance with accepted medical standards, and where the application of life-sustaining treatment would serve only to prolong the process of dying."

#2.1.6.1.4 Zachriel on 2019-02-28 11:41 (Reply)

No, you've dodged the issue presented in the fact pattern. We're going to look at this solely from the perspective, for a moment, of a botched abortion. For instance saline was administered to fetus in utero with the intent to terminate biological activity - but, the saline did not have the desired effect. You've been shot - with the intent to end your life but, it didn't have the immediate desired effect - you've just had your femoral artery severed. The person who shot you, lets you expire - the doctor who injected the fetus with saline, lets it expire. Tell me the difference.

#2.1.6.1.4.1 BornSouthern on 2019-02-28 12:53 (Reply)

BornSouthern: We're going to look at this solely from the perspective, for a moment, of a botched abortion.

Yes. So a fetus may survive an abortion.

The U.S. already has a federal born-alive law, Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which accounts for this situation. Doctors and patients may still make decisions about medically efficacious treatment. If the fetus is viable, then current law requires appropriate care as for any baby. The new law requires resuscitation and a prolongation of life, even when the fetus is not viable.

#2.1.6.1.4.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-28 13:02 (Reply)

It would force them to resuscitate "such an infant" even if the parents did not want those measures. "Such an infant" in my opinion, should have the option to live, even if his designated birth parents don't care about him.

Why should the birth parents have the final say if the baby is alive and kicking, and there are adoptive parents willing and hoping to adopt?

By the way, there are many adoptive parents who would love to take on what the mother can't.

#2.1.7 LP on 2019-02-27 19:37 (Reply)

LP: It would force them to resuscitate "such an infant" even if the parents did not want those measures. "Such an infant" in my opinion, should have the option to live, even if his designated birth parents don't care about him.

We're talking about cases where there is no such option. The baby is non-viable or has a terminal condition. The example above to which you are responding was of a pregnant women who would die along with her fetus unless she had an abortion. She couldn't live long enough to save the baby, so labor was induced before it was viable. There was no choice for long-term survival of the baby, but only on how the dying process should proceed. For many mothers, it means holding and comforting the baby while it dies, a chance to tell her baby she was loved.

#2.1.7.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-28 11:48 (Reply)

The only reason that Casey voted with the Republicans is because he would be excoriated across Pennsylvania if he did otherwise. Too many Catholics.

#3 Stephen M Lawrence DMD (Link) on 2019-02-27 10:03 (Reply)

You mean "real catholics" don't you. After all, Cuomo and Pelosi are catholics.

#3.1 mudbug on 2019-02-27 10:10 (Reply)

Re: This is America, 2019

Every fake hate crime is just a high tech lynching of the group who supposedly perpetrated the crime.

#4 mudbug on 2019-02-27 10:15 (Reply)

In Virginia the Lieutenant Governor is claiming he is a lynching victim because two women claimed he raped them. It's amazing how all these democrat perps are really victims.

#5 Ray on 2019-02-27 11:56 (Reply)

Please, please connect the dots. There has been much discussion around "prolonging life for the elderly". That is to say ever since the discussion around Obama care even began the "liberated" social democrats were being so bold, so socially brave as to be having discussions around the possibility of limiting the costs of medicine for the elderly. Just take away their right to choose when they will give up. Give that right to decide to your local doctor. Step #1

Step #2 Same group of ever so liberated thinkers move to destroy the new born, or rather to give the local doctor the right to choose which baby shall be terminated. After all it does cost a great deal of money to support babies born with serious defects, i.e. spinal bifida, etc. SOOO... let me see now
If: the local doctor has the right to decide end of life and
the local doctor has the right to end the life of the newborn what happens here:
First thing is this: the local doctor no longer has a loyalty to the Hippocratic oath. No longer a lifelong dedication to preserving life -- anyone's life. You wipe away that moral sense within each doctor and what do you have? Blindly obedient, malleable medical staff who will have no self restraint when it comes to the sanctity of life. WHOOOPPPEE the Red Mob is going to love that one--we will then have doctors and medical staff with the same duty to please the state and no individual internal obligation/duty to honor an out of date moral code! Trust the American Reds to always always put forward a bill like this not for what it appear on the surface, but rather for what it accomplishes in other places and for other causes.

#6 faculty wife on 2019-02-27 13:26 (Reply)

The main opposition here to "physician-assisted suicide" (the new euphemism for killing patients) came from the disabled community. They know that this will become a license to put the disabled to death "for their own good."

The fact is, it is not even the physicians who will be making the decisions, it will be the insurance companies and the bean-counters in the hospital administration offices who decide treating a patient has become too expensive.

I have a lawyer friend who as guardian ad litem defended a patient where the hospital had made a decision to pull the plug because of cost of treatment. He got an injunction from the court to stop it. The woman recovered.

#6.1 Jim on 2019-02-27 14:20 (Reply)

"The main opposition here to 'physician-assisted suicide' (the new euphemism for killing patients) came from the disabled community."

If someone has to be "helped" to die, it's not suicide.

By the way, the term I use is death by physician.

It's a spade so call it one.

#6.1.1 JJM on 2019-02-28 07:10 (Reply)

faculty wife: Just take away their right to choose when they will give up.

The decision is up to the person or the family of a person who can't decide for themselves. Deciding on end-of-life care is an everyday occurrence in the real world outside the right-wing echochamber.

#6.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-27 16:59 (Reply)

Yep. Old Jim caught up in that right wing echo chamber.
Let's ignore his real life experience and keep pushing our nonsensical theoreticals because there is no echo chamber on the left.
And threw an ad hom in there somewhere.

#6.2.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-27 17:54 (Reply)

Robots CAN'T push me out of a job; I'm retired.

Celebrity Psychics: NYT Magazine investigates? I thought they spent their time hating Trump? This could have some semblance of being...something or other.

Bill Mahar: Sure there's lots of space I could fill, but "jerk" covers the waterfront.

May = Jimmy Carter? Jimmy didn't import Muslims, so I say May is worse.

#7 Sam L. on 2019-02-27 14:44 (Reply)

The Vatican's sex abuse summit failed due to the Pope's choice of language to start the summit. It is not clericalism that is the problem as the Pope refused to use clear language. The problem is homosexuals in the church leadership that victimizes the boys and seminarians. He refuses to address the issue head on and so he hopes the problem disappears. He personally knows of abusers and will not cull them from the priesthood. I suspect judgement will not be kind to him.

#8 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-27 17:19 (Reply)

China's authoritarian social credit system is no different than US social media's authoritarian social credit system. They each demand PC opinion or you're out.

#9 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-27 17:33 (Reply)

I can relate to the housing problems in Kalifornia because, for a very short time in the mid-eighties, I tried to be a building contractor there. After getting my license (which took two years), I immediately had a target on my back. The State wanted money for annual license fees, bonding, insurance, workman's comp, sales tax, and income tax, although I hadn't made a dime. Then, the County presumed to tell me what I could build, where, and how big. And I'm not even talking about the Coastal Commission which required years (no lie!) of environmental studies before allowing anything to be built within 10 miles of the coast. I saw the handwriting on the wall and got the hell out of that state.

#10 snopercod on 2019-02-27 17:48 (Reply)

"Venice, CA: BEACH OF THE LIVING DEAD"

------------------------------------------------

The narrator totally misses the point on the "homeless," although every portion of his video shows what is going on. This is not an economic problem. The large, large majority of the "homeless" are either drug addicts or have brain damage from drugs. Nobody wants to speak the truth which is staring us straight in the face.

#11 Jim on 2019-02-27 18:01 (Reply)

Remember that the drug crowd always maintains that drug use is a victimless crime and should be legalized...but who has to pick up the tab for all this BS. Those are the victims.

#11.1 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-27 19:19 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, February 27. 2019

Wednesday morning links