Monday, 13 July 2009
-
Blogosphere Breaks Controlled Dissemination of Information Again
Do we consider the opinions of a sitting Supreme Court Justice to be relevant? Do we consider their views to be worthy of examination and critique to gain a insight into their rulings?
I always thought so. In fact, as Sonya Sotomayor is going to be going through the confirmation hearings I am sure there are going to be questions on her views on abortion, homosexual rights, race, the second amendment and personal liberties. Decisions she has made in the past will be reviewed. Questions will be asked about her view on opinions of previous decisions made by the Supreme Court and issues she felt were not considered/weighed properly . Are her views on Court decisions she did not participate in relevant? Of course they are.
Unless of course the views expressed do not agree with current political correctness. I saw some blog headlines this past week about a comment Ruth Bader Ginsberg made, but honestly didn't read them as it was a busy week. I did read one scathing comment a reader posted about how her position (Bader's) was being twisted to make it seem like she was on the Roe court and that her views lacked relevance. I always love the relevance police determining what is relevant for all, as if they were asked to be others relevance editor.
Anyway, at this point I still hadn't taken too much notice until this morning about what the stir was about , then I was reading the Telegraph this morning and saw this post; What the hell did Ruth Bader Ginsburg mean when she linked abortion and eugenics?
Honestly, I didnt read the post right off, just opened it in a new tab and chuckled that a chap named Damian was reporting on Ginsberg making the same connection I made years before and I was told I was distorting history. (Forget all the material on Margeret Sanger.)
"The mainstream media have been incredibly slow to pick up on a creepy comment by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a New York Times interview published today but flagged last week. In it, Ginsburg talks about on Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalised abortion:
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.
What? You can find the full context of the remark here, in the Times interview, but it doesn’t settle matters. And the (pro-choice) media haven’t exactly jumped on the story. Bloggers are incredulous. This is what Creative Minority Rreport had to say yesterday:
.... as of this morning the mainstream media have completely ignored the story about one of the most powerful people in the country essentially endorsing eugenics on populations “we don’t want to have too many of”.
What the heck is going on here? What are we to make of the media’s complete silence on this issue? They don’t see a little eugenics between friends as a big deal? They thought it was taken out of context?
As the large metropolitan newspapers die, they’re wondering why. This is why.
Fair point. You might think the New York Times might want to trumpet its exclusive. But the mindset of that pompous, prickly, boring, self-regarding publication is so overwhelmingly liberal that it didn’t even realise it had a story on its hands."
Incidentally, I don't agree with Damian's take on causation. Secondly, this is not a post on abortion, it is a post on Supreme Court Justices opinions relevance on cases they did not decide. Thirdly, expecting the New York Times to not editorialize from its point of view is outright naive.
Do you think that Justices views on Eugenics and Population Control are relevant to know ? Do you get tired of the controlled dissemination of information to the masses on what the elites feel is relevant?...translated..on what they want you to know?
This is another instance where bloggers have forced main stream publications to highlight issues that the publications were not predisposed to report on. Only in blogosphere.
-
recommend
- recs 7
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to ProvokingThought's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in ProvokingThought's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (33)
I keep trying to think of a reason Ginsburg's comment might be OK after all, and I still can't come up with anything. I've read the context, and it certainly doesn't change the meaning of those words. So it'd be nice if someone would just ask the obvious follow up question: "Your honor, exactly what populations do you believe to be undesirable."
I get really tired of people complaining about how amateurs on the internet are destroying professional journalism. The way I see it, the "amateurs" serve as a check on the "professionals" to report what the people really want to know. Besides, the "amateurs" often rely on the "professionals" somewhere to make the story and information available.
I think a justice's view on any issue is relevant because you never know when a case might be brought when that issue might become immediately relevant. How do we know that there couldn't be some court case relating in some way to population control or abortion that could show up in front of the Supreme Court sometime in the next year or two? I doubt anyone knows the particulars of every case that is currently being decided in courts or that has been decided but is open for appeal. Even if they did, we don't have any way of knowing what all strange arguments the lawyers might make in the cases and how those might affect a ruling.
It is just not being noticed and that lack of being noticed is very intensional. I did an entry on that last week, but even with a rec from the theologians cafe I really had very little interest in it. And I believe that comment your talking about must have been to my entry, that was exactly like one I got. And some legal genus insulting my intellect was there as well
. I'm slowly starting to be won over to the idea the liberalism is a mental disorder.
Thank God for blogs because that is where the only objective take on the news really is.
@randomneuralfirings - great point and question: As you know, this was really common thinking among her contemporaries and is not unusual or unique. This opinion is expressed so matter of factly she is stating it as if she is sure it is the underlying presupposition behind the case. Thanks gfor your comment.
Check this out
GOVERNMENT REGULATED FAMILY SIZE
“We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” -Dr. Ehrlich (emphasis added)
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. …All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” -David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth, founder of the Earth Island Institute, and the first Executive Director for the Sierra Club (emphasis added)
The American Baby Code” by Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood (formerly American Birth Control League -Prescott Bush, grandfather to the Presidents, was its Treasurer in 1947):
Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies. To assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burden of charity and taxation for public relief and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services of government health departments or under the support of charity, or as non-profit, self-sustaining agencies subject to inspection and control by public authorities.
Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued by government authorities to married couples upon application, providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part no indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
Article 7. Every county shall be assisted administratively by the states in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between county birth rate and its index of child welfare. When the county records show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county shall be taxed by the State . . . The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the State within the given county in giving financial support to birth control . . .
Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable diseases, and others found biologically unfit should be sterilized or in cases of doubt should be isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.
In the June and October 1970 issues of the Planned Parenthood publication, Family Planning Perspectives, called for the mandatory sterilization of those who had two children or more.
“People who abhor the China one-child policy are dumb-dumbs . . . ” -Ted Turner, CFR member, media mogul (father of five)
@mrcolorful - The main two differences is one is controlled and paid and the other generally is not.I get tired of it as well, but it is kind of fact of life stuff, ratchet up the pressure when they b*&^% !
@trunthepaige - I cant honestly say if it was yours or not Paige because I just saw it and read like one or two comments just going off. Obamabots make similar comments on blogs on subject matter they dont like so it could be. I will come over to your blog tonight and look for the post! How life treating you?
@ProvokingThought - Life is good I was gone on a boat and at a music fest.
My entry really was nothing great, just the quote mostly. It is very possible I got an unthinking Obamabot response, it did not address what I said well at all. And the insult . . . of course I am ignorant I must be. I am not liberal that is how they "think" I can't be anything except ignornet, well maybe evil. I really thought when I came back this morning i would see that this story had gained traction.
i will tell you a little secret...i started my college career wanting to be a journalist...keep in mind, this was close to 40 years ago...i took many classes in journalism getting out of the beginning 101 type required and getting into the meatier classes...even tho i was way more liberal than i am today, i quit the journalism major because i was disgusted at the agenda that journalism clearly had, which was not to disseminate news...
You beat me to the punch on this one. I think Ginsberg's opinions on this abolutely need to be reported on. And it needs to be compared with all the other politicians and pundents who believe the exact same thing.
How arrogant and elitist are these people to think they have the right to control reproduction on ANY basis but especially on the basis of race, supposed "value" etc.
I guess we know why the Democrats and Liberals are so fond of the ChiComs. Is their plan the next step? Legislate how many kids you can have an of what gender and murder those which exceed the count?
Do we really want to live in an America designed like this? I know I absolutely do NOT. And where was I when Planned parenthood got in bed with the devil? What unholy sleep have I fallen into when our Supreme Court, Congress , and President think murder is the answer for ANYTHING?
Regarding the Feeble minded aspect to this insanity. This is exactly the type of thinking that went on in Nazi Germany. Do we want to emulate that? Hell no!
my personal opinion is,,, if our laws are so complicated it is unclear what they actually mean,, and we need to hire thinkers to inject their own opinion into the case defining it,,, then that law has no reason to be on the books,,, therefore as you may have guessed,,, my personal opinion would be to disband the supreme court and let them all get jobs sacking groceries,,,,
and send all unclear laws packing right along with them,,,, along with a lot of clear laws,,,,
@ProvokingThought - I'm pretty sure its the control feature that is reason they are so enamored with "professional" journalism. It always seems to be control freaks who can't tolerate any dissenting opinion who are vocal about how evil bloggers are.
Many Millions of people have no idea of the straight line ties between eugenics, birth control and planned parenthood and abortion. I'll be back to comment again after I get back from the store
@mejicojohn - John, I am all for wiping the books and starting over with plain language legislation. I also thought that perhaps they should have to repeal two laws to make one new one...its not like we dont have enough laws already
@ShamelesslyRed - The line is not drawn for them in the public education sytem K, and the parents dont fill in the missing parts of the picture to their shame.
@mrcolorful - blogging can be challenging when you put something up and have to defend it, something the paid boys are not real good at and do not appreciate having to defend their view to a amateur. Think of the correlation when you ask some ordained ministers a question about a position of theirs (especially if they have a Ph.D. or a double masters) and many times you will see a similar response.
@SirDoc - well the law being what the judges (or the furher) said it is an exact flashback to Nazi Germany, as the law lacks a fixedivity. btw, I posted a video on Sotomayor today as well.
@tialoca_talks - I played the get around the cores game and overloaded on business mgmt credits but some places wont accept all the credits on transfer without the core being completed. This ended up costing me more more later as the credit hours price really went up too. One of the good things about a major is that you get a peek inside the career and many times you find you DONT want to be what you thought you did.It is still a easier lesson in school I think.
@trunthepaige - I was at a music festival/camping at the end of June and had a great time myself.
I remember perusing yours and having not seen the movie wasnt sure what I was missing, and I remember the parking lot remark. I read the comment I think you were refering to tonight but I dont htink I spend that much reading time on the comments. The first time I read yours I had taken a Vicadin .
@ProvokingThought - yeah, i got the core out of the way quick, but changed majors four times...i liked going to college and wasn't in any hurry to graduate...
@tialoca_talks - I was married after my second year with a child and paying my own way while working full time and trying to support them , so a lot of fun went out of it and then I had to cut back to less than full time which is why I was doing major topics.
@trunthepaige - the comments the one girl made (whose screen name I dont recognize) seem a lot like the ones I read somewhere else Paige, in fact I am almost pretty sure it was somewhere else. Now to try to go back through my browser history. When did you first post that? Now I am going to have to check other posts I read...
@ProvokingThought - I've encountered nasty responses from PhD carrying ministers without ever actually challenging their positions. I think the quality of the reporting in the "professional" circles would improve if they actually had to defend their stories and their takes on the stories.
@ProvokingThought - woof...by the time i even thought about getting married, i was graduating...they basically told me i had to i had so many hours...hahahaha...
@ProvokingThought - Her response was obviously caned as it did not fit my entry very well. And she made no effort to defend her remarks after I eat them.