February 14, 2011

June 20, 2008

Today I celebrate the one month anniversary of Jack’s last question (Passing off retired general pr flacks as objective military analysts is not unlike passing off 'on-message' partisans as objective reporters, no?) by answering it.
Indeed, Jack, the first thing is not unlike the second thing; they are extremely similar except for the fact that one thing is true while the other isn’t. The presuppositions in the question are not acceptable to me (nothing I’ve ever said would suggest otherwise) and I do not “assume the premise” that the New York Times is passing off ‘on-message’ partisans as objective reporters.
I see three separate propositions that you apparently buy into and take as given; that NYT reporters are “on-message partisans” (they are not what they may seem), that NYT’s goal is to have their reporters perceived as “objective”, and that NYT is engaged in the deceptive scheme of “passing off” so-called journalists as something that they’re not. In the past, the arguments that we’d email to each other would usually come with reasons to support their conclusions, consistent with the old adage “he who asserts must prove”. The burden of proving the assertion is yours to carry but at the moment, there is no good reason to accept your claim about the NY Times.
Not long ago you were presented with information that rebutted your thesis that Jacoby of The Boston Globe must be either 1) a disguised propagandist for Big Oil or 2) a moron. Your response was to repeat the moron part while continuing with your sardonic tone, when really you would have been better served by either 1) retracting your complete argument against him or 2) simply remaining silent. The episode makes me wonder if I’m engaging with someone who will admit it when the commitments that he holds are shaken by good counter-arguments. Jacoby complained that ethanol mandates would lead to unintended consequences. Your reply had relevance to Jacoby’s complaint yet it was not evidence which could in any way refute what he was claiming (hence the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi). I explained this and you did reply but it wasn’t much of an answer.
I sense a common theme here; reporters, when they write or don’t write what you think they should, do it because they have an agenda. To sell newspapers ? Don’t be naive… it’s to push a private interest or political ideology. This, along with stupidity, seems to be your working assumption about reporters and what motivates their actions (call it Occam’s Razor In Reverse or Inference to the Most Nefarious Explanation). But strong allegations should require strong evidence and I welcome you to provide it. I just hope that you consider opposing views seriously with the idea that changing your mind on an issue was at least possible, as opposed to a staying "on-message" no matter what the evidence suggests.

April 5, 2005

I wonder if the underlying conflict is not so much between abortion and right to die partisans and right to life partisans, but over religion. If one believes that people are created in some sense in His image, then one should have a very different position than those who believe people are biochemical machines.
Ironically, if that is true, everybody is on the wrong side. If one truly and really believes in an immortal soul, then the death of a fetus or a comatose patient should not matter as much as it would to a secular person who believes that death is final and entire. Yet the religious and secular are on the opposite sides from the logical ones. More proof that nobody knows anything and nothing makes any sense.

- Jack

April 3, 2005

I wonder if the underlying conflict is not so much between abortion and right to die partisans and right to life partisans, but over religion. If one believes that people are created in some sense in His image, then one should have a very different position than those who believe people are biochemical machines.
Ironically, if that is true, everybody is on the wrong side. If one truly and really believes in an immortal soul, then the death of a fetus or a comatose patient should not matter as much as it would to a secular person who believes that death is final and entire. Yet the religious and secular are on the opposite sides from the logical ones. More proof that nobody knows anything and nothing makes any sense.

- Jack

March 28, 2005

Raphael speaks # 4

in the spirit of reconciliation, here's one thing we all can agree on.
when a young women is slowly starved to death based solely on the
claims of
her ex-husband with a new common-law wife, it's time for ironic
anyone in the group interested in a trip to the holocaust museum? we
look at the pictures of human suffering and make snide running

Raphael speaks # 3

you didn't address the point.
here's what you wrote verbatim. "Terri's wish should be honored
no matter what one's personal views on the sanctity of life."
along with all the fun stuff i threw in, i wrote asking
how do you know what terri's wish was? i made
the point that it's all based on the husband's
claims, which i admitted was what the florida
courts had to go by. we don't know and will never know
for sure what terry schiavo felt then
(she supposedly said it after watching a tv movie on someone
with a terminal illness,) and we don't know what kind of will
she has to live now in her vegetative state.
your thick skinned response ignored (gee whata surprise)
this basic point. you certainly don't give a FACH what
dershowitz says because you ignored his and lani davis'
point: that michael schiavo should recuse himself and
turn over guardianship to the parents.
you also ignored my other points,
that 2 week starvation is horribly cruel and painful
and so is calling it a no brainer.
and what about the point that the parents are willing
to take care of her at no cost to the state.
then why kill her? did you address that? finally, the nurses and friend didn't come forward before because they had no reason to, terry was being kept alive.

let me repeat it a third time. how do you know
what "Terri's wish" is if it's based on hearsay?
why is the husbands hearsay better than the friends
and the nurses? {this particular bitch feud could have been
avoided if you just said that your side thinks courts must
follow husband's wish because he is the legal guardian,
and that her state was not worth saving. instead you absurdly
decided that your side was the one honoring terri!
thats ok, im always up for a good fight, even if uneven;
nine smug allbrainers against one.

looking forward to your ignoring the question
and calling me a starfucker again.

March 27, 2005

Hanza 2

Now we both know (editorial below) but didn't you expect it from these
snake oil salesman all along?
I had hopes SF was gonna make you a bit more pissed. Maybe your making
too much money.
Did you get offered "compensation" to speak fondly about the war during
family gatherings?
I remeber Dad describing LA in the 60s as him going to work as an
engineer and thinking all thise protestors should "get a job".. HA!
miss ya'll,
Happy Bunny Day. (Jesus was just in a coma)

Hanza 1

Damn dude.. and I thought YOU were the smarter child.
Are you sure you don't give a fuck what Alan Deshowitz thinks??? I
think you dooooooo.
Why hasn't anyone used the word Euthenasia? Or talked more about
Oregon's progressive right to die laws. Or the Netherlands?
If anyone really cared about the bigger picture they would take bigger
steps. I think it was our beloved Barney Frank that said something
Why do represenitives who have a BS act like they have an MD.
The experts have spoken on all sides. The freaks that don't believe
this could happen in their country are the same assholes (that you voted
for) that want to bring this country back to the Donna Reed show. Sadly
I blame christianity. Pope made me laugh today though..
Are you bothered that they keep calling it starvation when medical
ethics experts have concluded that feeding tube removal is a very peaceful
and calm way to go.
We're finally getting some rain and it's a nice change.
I saw a local guy bust out a mean Kill The Poor on accordian last week.
Its was remarkable.. like note 4 note.

March 26, 2005

Frank replies # 2

>Your thin-skinned defensiviness is showing. Sure, I'm
>jokey and sarcastic at times but I don't need to take
>any college courses because I'm not thinking what you
>think I'm thinking. If I didn't bring up what you
>think I should have in my last email, it's not because
>I think only I have a lock on the truth. It's because
>I don't think what your saying is relevant. You quote
>the "union of orthodox rabbis". I respect all people
>of faith who take a consistant pro-life stance but,
>no, I do not find the rabbis' statement very
>convincing. And as you may already know, I don't give
>a fuck what Alan Dershowitz thinks. I'm glad that a
>lot of famous people seem to agree with you but as an
>argument it has no validity and doesn't prove your
>As the cops like to say, "Tell it to the judge". For
>the last 7 years the only people who matter in this
>case have been doing just that. The husband started
>the legal process in 1998. He has been accused of
>lying since at least April of 2001 (source "Tampa Bay
>Online). A close friend of Terri Schiavo reveals that
>she saw bruises on Terri in 1990. Boy, you're waiting
>15 years to come forward but maybe we should tell a
>judge about it !! Wait... maybe we shouldn't do that
>because, as Schiavo's father says "The judges are
>running this country," (quoted in the Washington
>Post). Maybe we should let the chattering classses
>decide. I'm glad the parents used the system to fight
>for what they believe in. Let's see if those nurses
>and other haters of Michael Shiavo do the same.
>Because if Newsmax and the Larry King Show are the
>only forums that they have the balls to state their
>claim in then it's not just hot air, it's slander.

Raphael speaks # 2

> > the only pattern i see is your opinions masquerading
> > as fact.
> > i would argue that the real fact is that we don't
> > know what terry shiavo's
> > wishes are. all we know is that her husband claims
> > that it was her wish to
> > die and he is her legal guardian in the state of
> > florida.
> > if you think that that means that therefore, "it is
> > an undisputable fact
> > that cannot be contested that terry shiavo wishes to
> > die" and that
> > “therefore, we should honor that undisputable wish
> > to die by starving a
> > woman over the course of two weeks," i suggest you
> > start by taking a course
> > in logic at your local community college.
> > from my viewing, cnn and the networks are stressing
> > michael shiavos pov and
> > his "love and respect for his wife's wishes," while
> > fox and internet sources
> > like newsmax are reporting the other side, such as
> > the nurses reports.
> > since when is reporting nurses reports not mentioned
> > in mainstream media
> > slander? because you think it is? you're treating
> > two nurses observations
> > the same as inuendo from a friend. they're not the same.
> > if you and debbie paid more than superficial
> > attention, you would know that
> > i culled additional "slander" from tom sowell and
> > charles krauthammer.
> > or that leading liberal thinkers such as alan
> > dershowitz and clinton legal
> > counsel lani davis have come out for leaving terri
> > shiavo connected and
> > alive. neither one of you has mentioned this.
> > liberal commentators like Chris Matthews and Andrea
> > Mitchell say they’re ambivalent.
> > Did you bring up the liberals on shiavos side at
> > all? Did you bring up the
> > issue of whether a new law should be passed in
> > regards to erring on the side
> > of life when there’s a family dispute and no living will.
> > why bother, when as i said in the beginning, your
> > opinions are the facts.
> > finally thanks for implying that i'm a dupe and a
> > mindless idiot that runs with the herd and doesn't know
> > what slander is because i respond to debbie's comment
> > about the real michael shiavo with emails on the subject.
> > Another fact is that it's not only the so-called
> > brainless hysterical
> > christian mob and by implication, brainless raphael
> > who doesn't want
> > this woman to be put to a slow death when her
> > parents are willing to take
> > care of her. even dershowitz agrees that since the
> > husband has a family, he
> > should turn over guardianship to the shiavos.
> > if there's one thing we all agree on it's that frank
> > and debbie are smarter than charles krauthammer
> > and alan dershowitz, a conservative and
> > liberal that support terry shiavo.
> > as debbie said "it's a no-brainer" (haha) and as frank
> > put it "she could play with the bush twins" heh heh.
> > i say this with love:
> > fuck you too, you shallow arrogant poser twit.
> > you're josh hartnett without
> > the deep thinking.

March 25, 2005

Frank replies

There's a pattern emerging. Slag and slander one's opponent (in this case Michael Schiavo) with accusations that wouldn't last a day in a court of law but will win a few converts in the court of public opinion. It worked before the last election but won't work now.
But who now decides for her? A recent poll by Fox News showed that most Americans agree with the long-standing laws establishing a spouse's right to make decisions for an incapacitated husband or wife. The parents deserve our pity but they don't have a legal leg to stand on. The American voters made it that way.

Raphael speaks

what is stopping michael shiavo from letting terri's parents take care of her at their own dime. that she wanted to die is based on his word only, and even if she did say it, he still could be the bigger man and turn her over to her parents' care.
or when the children of holocaust survivors root for slow death by starvation
is it a no-hearter?

or was no-brainer self referential?

> Friend: Terri Often Had Bruises

> A close friend of Terri Schiavo's said that she
> often appeared bruised in
> the months before she was found unconscious in
> her
> St. Petersburg, Florida
> home on Feb. 25, 1990.

> "I did notice bruises on her upper arms and
> upper legs," Jackie Rhodes told
> Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. Rhodes
> and Schiavo worked together at
> a local insurance office.

> At the time, Rhodes said, she attributed Terri's
> frequent bruising "to maybe
> running into the desk at work or, you know,
> maybe she was extra-sensitive."

> "But now, hindsight tells me that I did see them
> quite frequently and that
> they may have been more than just a bump into
> the desk," she added.

> "They were mostly bruises where normally they
> would be covered up, you know,
> during the work day," she explained. "They were
> smaller bruises, like maybe
> someone had grabbed her or, you know, like,
> squeezed her arm or leg really tight."

> On Friday Rhodes revealed that Terri and her
> husband had an ugly argument
> that night before she was was discovered
> unconscious on her bathroom floor,
> and had called her in tears to report the fight.

> Rhodes said Terri and Micheal had already
> discussed getting a divorce.

March 24, 2005

whose's custody ?

CBC News reported that Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and the state's social service agency had filed a petition asking to take over legal custody of Terri Schiavo from her husband, Michael.

I wonder why our President Bush can't take legal custody of Terri so that the Bush twins would have another sister to play with.