2012 WTF #16: Hey all my friends who are parents – do you agree with the Oxford University latest article that states “Killing babies no different from abortion” – Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
They go on to say:
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
I’m sorry, but I have to believe that these people have either 1) never been parents, 2) have been irreparably harmed by having a child born with a severe birth defect, or 3) simply do not have the capability of understanding the value of human life or the healing power in the smile of newborn.
Oxford University Report
I know I’d better be careful to not use any of those tricky, racial ‘code words’, so I’ll try to make myself perfectly clear. I don’t like Newt, not one bit, but the one thing I’m pretty sure of is that he wasn’t using ‘code words’ and doesn’t seem racist to me.
Now, let me state clearly to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee; “What’s wrong with you?” How can this country ever move beyond racial turmoil, if crazy nutjobs like you keep accusing everyone of being racist? If people you don’t approve of don’t use straight racial slurs and racist language, you just accuse them of using ‘code words’. Get a grip lady. I’m 50 years old and have been a conservative my whole life. Both my parents were conservative and my grandparents before them. And guess what, not one racist among them. I was also one of those poor kids, like the kind Newt refers to, who had to get a job before I was old enough to ‘officially’ get a job. It helped me feel I was helping my family and earning my own money. I’m pretty sure it helped keep me out of trouble too. There’s a lot of white people like me and a lot of people of color who all had to work when we were young. Pardon me for not immediately thinking racially all the time. You have become ridiculous, not only to me, but to many others who hear your same moronic words over and over. Now you’re just a laughingstock. I sure hope there’s no ‘code words’ in here, because I pretty much feel the same way about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Now to the article:
Posted on January 21, 2012 at 11:34am by Madeleine Morgenstern
Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee on Friday accused Newt Gingrich of using racial “code words” in calling President Barack Obama the “food stamp president” and saying schools ought to hire children to do janitorial work.
The Texas congresswoman’s comments came in response to a question about remarks she made on the House floor Wednesday, when she said there are “candidates like Newt Gingrich who want to throw fuel and matches and fire to develop sort of an explosiveness in this country” and there are “underlying suggestions” to calling Obama the “food stamp president.”
“These are code words. It’s inappropriate,” Jackson Lee told MSNBC’s Martin Bashir Friday. “Let me say that the code words, as far as I’m concerned words that generate and signify race.”
“[With Gingrich] It is ‘I will use race to divide. I will call the president the food stamp president,’” she said. “Telling us that a janitor who makes $37,000 would be in a better position to give his job up so that the children of the poor in New York…can pick up a broom and work.”
To say children in New York should “pick up a broom and work…is a code word to, if you will, portray poor children and poor school districts that they have seen no one work legitimately,” she said. “That they don‘t have a work ethic and these janitors are overpaid unionized workers who don’t have family and are not making $37,000 a year”
“I think Mr. Gingrich should be ashamed of himself and we should not want to win at any cost. Let’s bring the country together. Let’s not destroy Mr. Obama. Let’s talk about helping the American people,” she said.
Her comments came just days after former President Jimmy Carter made a similar charge against Gingrich as well, saying there’s a “subtlety of racism” to his comments about food stamps and welfare.
Watch Jackson Lee’s remarks below, via MSNBC:
Click on link below to see the video:
By Brent Bozell | January 21, 2012 | 07:49
Late-night comedians historically have relished the opportunity to poke fun at politicians. Sometimes they savage them. In the Obama era, they haven’t been so enthusiastic about any of it. A recent study of political jokes on three late-night shows (Letterman, Leno, and Jimmy Fallon) by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found that Barack Obama’s joke count is “substantially lower than any other president.”
Some of the Obama jokes are actually bipartisan slams. Jimmy Fallon joked that “Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton are more mature than President Obama and John Boehner.” This is the classic comedian’s pose, and the safe one, that all the politicians are ridiculous, squabbling poseurs. Still, it’s every bit as much pandering to the public as the politicians are.
But some self-aggrandizing comedians are constantly stepping off the sidelines and attempting to participate in, not just ridicule, political campaigns. At least once a year, Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert professes to get serious about politics. He portrays himself as a pompous Bill O’Reilly clone. The pomposity is not just an act. He’s engaged in a series of egotistical stunts to promote his own Nielsen ratings. Now he’s thrown his hat into the Republican primary ring to be elected “President of South Carolina.”
This is nothing new. In 1928, Will Rogers ran as the “bunkless candidate” of the Anti-Bunk Party. His only campaign promise was that, if elected, he would resign. When his name was seriously considered by voters, he wrote, “Now when that is done as a joke it is alright. But
when it’s done seriously, it’s just pathetic.”
Stephen Colbert is just pathetic.
Of course, Colbert isn’t seriously running for president, any more than he was seriously testifying on migrant workers in that fiasco in front of the House Judiciary Committee in 2010. What, then, gives him the right to pontificate as if he were demanding that level of respect?
‘I Want You to See the Warning Signs’: Beck Outlines Italy’s Return to Fascism | Video | TheBlaze.com
This show was awesome and very informative. I really enjoyed it. You should watch it for yourself. Check out GBTV.
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 8:54am by Becket Adams
Earlier this week on GBTV, Glenn Beck delivered what he referred to as “some of the most important information” on the economy he has ever given. Naturally, he discussed the eurozone crisis and the global economy.
As noted earlier on The Blaze, the EU continues to creep closer to the edge of total financial meltdown; there are many warning signs and Beck addressed some of these.
During the GBTV program, Beck dissected the situation in Italy, including the installation of unelected technocrats, and explained how policies that have been put in place in the EU could be coming to America.
Think that’s over-the-top? Consider what‘s going on right now in the EU and compare that to what’s happening with MF Global.
“Italy is rapidly heading towards fascism,” Beck said. “Their brand of newly unelected technocratic government should be kind of a red flag — or a black flag as far as Italy is concerned.”
“I want you to see the warning signs here,” Beck continued, “We’re talking about a country that is famous for its laid-back, slow-moving lifestyle. They don’t get things done overnight.”
Or do they?
Facebook may give Barack Obama a slight edge this coming presidential election while creating a wide misperception about who’s actually pulling ahead in the Republican Party. A new partnership between Facebook and Politico announced last week will reveal users’ private messages if and when they relate to their feelings about a political candidate.
Liz Gannes of All Things D enlightens us about the new dual effort, reporting that:
It will consist of sentiment analysis reports and voting-age user surveys, accompanied by stories by Politico reporters. Most notably, the Facebook-Politico data set will include Facebook users’ private status messages and comments. While that may alarm some people, Facebook and Politico say the entire process is automated and no Facebook employees read the posts.
Rather, every post and comment — both public and private — by a U.S. user that mentions a presidential candidate’s name will be fed through a sentiment analysis tool that spits out anonymized measures of the general U.S. Facebook population.
Apparently, the fact that “no Facebook employees read the posts” is supposed to assure us that the quotes are not being hand picked to prefer one candidate over another. After all, since the posts will be published worldwide it can’t possibly be referring to privacy (plus, the quotes are “anonymized” so they can’t be attributed to any particular Facebook user).
But here’s the thing.
ABC on Romney Not at Bain Since 1999: He Sent Millions to the Mormon Church From Recent Bain Deals | NewsBusters.org
My husband and I gave more in charitable contributions than the cheapskates mentioned in the NB story. NB is totally right about the wording and slant of this story, especially since some of these Bain donations happened long after Romney was no longer with the company. I don’t support Romney for President, but since when did a rich person, giving to charity of his own free will become so terrible. I may not agree with his politics, but the snide way this Brian Ross talks about Romney makes me want to defend him. I don’t see what even makes this a story. All I can say is, “Mitt, forewarned is forearmed”. If this is one of the ways they’re going to go after him, they better be ready to lose on this point. This just proves rich people give to charity on their own and don’t need the government to do it for them.
Below is the story from NewsBusters:
By Tom Blumer | January 18, 2012 | 23:58
In 1998, we learned that Al and Tipper Gore made $353 in deductible charitable contributions against income of $198,000 the previous year. In the decade from 1998-2007, Joe and Jill Biden averaged $369 per year in such reported contributions. Bill and Hillary Clinton were infamous for taking charitable contributions for used underwear.
The aforementioned facts are generally not known by people who don’t closely follow the news, because not much was made of them. But from the point of view of ABC News, particularly the hatchet men disguised as investigative reporters Matthew Mosk and Brian Ross, Mitt and Ann Romney have a much bigger problem than the Gores, Bidens, and Clintons: They, and particularly Mitt through Bain Capital (dubious, as we’ll see), have given too much money to a particular charity. Because the reporters apparently want readers and viewers to see this as something underhanded, they describe charity as “sending” instead of “giving”: