Disqus - Latest Comments for Lynx

Re: God Hates The World

Lynx — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:36:47 -0000

For everyone depressed about the stomach turning Christian Cult and heartbroken about the little girl at the end, a cheering up. Here is Freddie-boys church being greeted by the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity in Chicago. Not a frat known for it's liberal values, in the least, but they sure know how to say hi!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZfZiBRFM5w

Re: Daniel Radcliffe: Cool Nerd. Atheist.

Lynx — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:45:47 -0000

Hannah, you have a choice; You either recognize that your idol is an atheist (and he's said this before) and therefore accept that all those nasty things you've been taught about atheists may not be so true (Angelina Jolie, Bill Gates, also atheists) OR you reject Daniel as an idol despite all the things you like about him because you are unwilling to let go of the bigotry you've probably learned from your parents, teachers and/or preachers.

10% of the US is atheist. A hell of a lot more of Europe is atheist. The world has not ended. We're regular people, I promise ;)

Re: Dichotomy Of A “Worst Person” Story

Lynx — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:05:17 -0000

Add me to the list of people who don’t get the “known lesbian” part? How is this any more relevant than “known brunette”? The back-story of having previously assaulted an officer is very relevant, but the sexual orientation? There doesn’t seem to be any accusation going about that the arrest was motivated by her orientation, so why mention it?
I’m sure though that there might be another side to the story, or at least that it’s possible that “political motivations” is not a foregone conclusion. That’s what investigations are for, after all.

Re: Exceptional Circumstances: A Canadian Couple and Their Premature Baby, Currently Receiving Care in the U.S., Must Be Reunited ASAP

Lynx — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:14:08 -0000

For the love of all that is good, do you people really have no heart at all? This is really just an opportunity to rage on about how awful allowing a public option would be? Send the baby BACK?!! Seriously, did you folks just leave your souls offline?!

For any Canadian that might be reading please know that we are not all like this. I consider my position on immigration to be very conservative (more than Bush Jr.) but this is not a place or a situation for that. We're talking about the case of a very sick baby who (I suspect because of some screw up) had to cross the border to get help in an allied country. I am 99% certain that the Canadian government will be paying for this, since it's system guarantees treatment and if it's anything like European systems that includes paying for private care if the public is insufficient/unavailable.

I am amused by how a public option (note that this does not abolish private care, alive and well in all countries with public healthcare) is considered too shoddy by so many and AT THE SAME TIME too much of a threat to allow it to compete with private care. As a resident of a country with true socialized medicine (Universal care for all in government run facilities) I fully recognize that the system has it's shortcomings, some of them quite serious. I also know that people would take to the streets if the possibility of American-style privatization was suggested, and that I'd be on those streets with them.

The passport issue is trickier and has more to do with security. Couldn't North America create a small Schengen Space to itself? A large number of EU nations allow free circulation of its citizens with their national ID, as well as other advantages in residence and the like. Of course that may involve the whole issue of the anti-ID paranoia that exists in the US (and maybe in Canada, who knows). I'm afraid that that truly is the decision of each country and I can understand the need for greater control, even if it is causing a huge problem in this particular situation.

I wish the baby and her family well.

Re: Wikipedia Full of Disagreeable Sourpusses Closed to New Ideas

Lynx — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:17:31 -0000

These studies are a cruel trap, aren't they? If the wikipedians dare to be just a tad pissed off that they've been called anti-social disagreeable introverts and express this, the response will inevitably be "See, it's true, they're disagreeable!". Any online atheist knows this trap; atheists are called amoral, lost, depressive angry people on a given article. Comments from outraged atheists ensue and said comments are used to "prove" the point of the article itself.

Note that I've no idea whether there is any merit in the study itself, but it sort of belongs in the "guilty if accused file".

Last year, researchers at HP Labs undertook an extensive study of why people upload videos to YouTube. They found that contributors are primarily driven by a craving for attention.

(sarcasm)Wow, that must have been hard to figure out!!! People create videos because of a desire for other people to see them? That's incredible!(/sarcasm)

I've been a member of a certain niche of the YT community for some time now. I've never made videos, but maybe some day I will. If I decide to actually do the (very hard) work of properly editing and creating material I will most certainly hope SOMEONE will see it. If I saw no one is interested, I'd probably go back to lurking and keeping up with my 20 or so subscriptions. That wouldn't be "exiting", simply not making videos because no one is looking at them. It's completely natural and totally undeserving of the contemptuous "they just want attention!" spin.

There are attention whores on YT, by the battalion. There are people there to do little more than videochat, and people who make up fake drama and people who show their cats by the millions. There are also people who work their asses off to provide good content. If you worked to create content and no one was watching, I'd wager you might also decide your time would be better spent on other endeavors.

Re: SCOTUS Turns Down Challenge to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Lynx — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:26:28 -0000

Sil, I continue to be astonished by the sheer level of your baseless and hateful bigotry. So patriotic hardworking Americans who casually say that they have a boyfriend or girlfriend and happen to share that persons gender are "advertising" sex? So this means that Obama is advertising the hetero sex he has with his wife whenever he mentions her existence?

The data is not on your side Sil. Even if data showing homosexuality, like religion, was a choice (and it's not), there is no evidence that people like Dan Choi could harm the US military simply by being more honest about their "preference" (known in civilized circles as their orientation), any more than females entering the military, or blacks integrating the military did.

But more than that, and what allows me to stay calm in the face of such positions, is that history is not on your side. Equality and acceptance is rising year by year for GLBT people. There is no indication whatsoever that this trend is stopping and quite a bit that it is slowly accelerating. It'll take some time, but I'm entirely certain that full equality is a matter of when, not if. In one more generation, treating GLBT people as perverts or mentally ill will be as generally rejected and socially unacceptable as racism.

Re: Study Supports View Sexuality Is Hard Wired

Lynx — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:35:00 -0000

There are quite a number of studies that back up the biological and innate origin of sexuality (both hetero and homosexual), though we still lack a complete picture of the determining factors. No clear genetic origin has been established though there is evidence to support "maternal effects" in the womb of the mother in the case of male homosexuality.

By contrast those who assert that homosexuality is "learned" or "a choice" have no credible scientific evidence to back this assertion up. The closest they have is a limited indication that in a small minority of individuals, sexuality is somewhat "flexible", an indication that that they have blown out of all proportion against the vociferous objections of the researcher that published the results.
In such a case as in the case of creationists disputing evolution, they lack any merit to be invited to "debate". They will doubtlessly ignore or condemn the study as the work of biased liberal godless scientists, but this does not count as "debating". To debate you have to come to the table with something approaching the same way of obtaining and validating facts. These people do not. There are people of good faith and limited understanding that may honestly believe, as many honestly believe in the bastardized version of creationism that is ID, that there is actual merit and strong debate on both sides, but that does not lend the position any credibility.

Paca, I completely agree with you that it should be no more than a scientific curiosity whether sexuality is a choice or not. In a rational society it wouldn't be. However, the truth is that there are many people who oppose homosexuality based on ancient cultural/religious beliefs. Proof that sexuality is inborn helps to break down such prejudice because many people will have a difficult time condemning someone for something that not only hurts no one, but they have no way of preventing or changing.

Re: Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Hispanic? Other Thoughts re Diversity

Lynx — Thu, 28 May 2009 05:08:44 -0000

I remember my parents and I scratching our heads when it came to the race/ethnicity question, having to decide between the options of white, not of Hispanic origin and Hispanic, as if white and Hispanic were mutually exclusive. My parents always ending up marking both options, despite the fact that the directions clearly instructed that only a single option be chosen.

Wow, that brings back memories. I remember that exact same situation from middle school. I was filling out an application to the only selective high school in San Francisco. When I came to "race" I had quite an internal struggle. I'm quite literally a Spanish American; born in Spain, partially raised in the US, one parent from each country. I'm white, but I'm also sort of a Hispanic. The struggle was made difficult because I knew Hispanic would help me get into the school (my grades were decent, but not top-notch) in a way puting "Caucasian" would not. I already opposed affirmative action, but the temptation to take advantage of it then was strong. In the end I stood on principle and decided that no, I was not the kind of person people who thought up the term "Hispanic" were really thinking about and if I really didn't like affirmative action I should not try to take advantage of it.

It's a constant problem with race. Since race is not actually an objective measure of much of anything, and much less the extremely inconsistent, intuition based criteria of race used by society, attempts to put all of us into neat little race categories will inevitably fail. The sooner we do away with such outdated ways of dividing people the better.

Re: Palestine Quiz

Lynx — Tue, 26 May 2009 11:14:33 -0000

Just to be clear Joe, I don't think this cartoon is "over the line" in the slightest, and I understand that the cartoons featured do not neccesarily reflect the views of TMV. Besides, it would probably be physically impossible to reflect the views of TMV bloggers on the subject of Israel in a single cartoon.

CStanley, I agree that it is valid to dispute the pre-existence of a Palestinian state or pseudostate before the existence of Israel. I do believe that the grandfather of almost any Palestinian today was probably born pretty close to where they currently live, a claim that cannot be made by all but a minority of Israelis (though not ALL Israelis descend from European stock, which is important to note). I happen to believe that the cartoonists intention is to invalidate the concept of a Palestinian state and not merely dispute unreasonable claims of the official existence of Palestine before Israel. My reasons are that I follow this particular cartoonist and he is a radical Zionist (to the ignorant: Zionist is not merely an anti-semitic slur, look it up). Most of his cartoons involve undermining any and all Palestinian claims to autonomy, up to and including accusing them of "faking" atrocities.

Re: Palestine Quiz

Lynx — Tue, 26 May 2009 06:37:29 -0000

That's very rich, considering that the argument seems to be that you can't found a country that wasn't already there. Considering that Israel was created pretty much out of nothing, based solely on the "historical" (milenia ago) homeland of the Jews, to see someone argue that Palestinians shouldn't have their own country because they didn't have an official one before is deeply ironic.

But then that's Dry Bones for you. I've yet to see a single strip where he expresses even a modicum of human compassion or recognition that Palestinians are capable of suffering and that Israel is EVER at fault.

Re: How Often Too Far?

Lynx — Fri, 08 May 2009 06:05:31 -0000

I'm all for limiting the scope of an overreaching law, but calling this an "isolated incident" is almost amusing. These "incidents" aren't isolated, this just happened to a white and presumably Christian American. I'm sure if you talked to the Muslim American community they'd be happy to inform you that patriotic Americans have been detained, their rights denied and their families not allowed to see or defend them. But that doesn't scandalize anyone because merely being Muslim makes you suspicious on the spot. If this kid was named Haashim most folks would be a lot less quick to say "this must be a mistake". While I understand the reasons for such assumptions, a law cannot be dismissed when it goes after people you "just know" can't be the target and it cannot be accepted when it goes after people that you "just know" should be the target.

Re: Susan Boyle And Great Britain (Guest Voice)

Lynx — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 10:27:23 -0000

Odd how different people can read the very same post and extract entirely different messages from them. What I see in this post is not someone justifying surprise at Ms. Boyle’s talent, nor letting himself or anyone else off the hook for their prejudice. In fact I’d say the opposite is true. The post seems to be saying that the cruelty was wrong, that the very fact that everyone was so surprised is just as damning and that the overflow of attention currently heaped on her is at least in part out of a wish to cover up these inconvenient facts.

Speaking as someone who was judged on appearances quite cruelly in the past I see nothing wrong with the post itself. It seems an honest portrayal of how one person being idolized does not make up for a country and individuals far too used to judging on appearances. I would wager that virtually everyone does it at least sometimes in different situations and to different people.

Re: Wrestling Megan McCain

Lynx — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:11:40 -0000

Jazz, the posts you linked are quite an education. Barely any comments address the possible merits of her arguments at all. Most include the word "spoiled" "stupid" "airhead" "blonde" or "porker" while dismissing her entirely.

I will agree with the vitriol on one point. So far as I can tell, the only reason she is given a platform is because of her last name. That she is at all prominent appears to be pure nepotism. I can see where many conservatives would find that frustrating.

However they use it as an excuse to not address a point that is valid, whether it comes from a rich heiress or a young hairdresser. A bulk of the young people of America simply don’t feel the same way on many issues as the conservative base of the GOP, and this will hurt them more in every election if they don’t adapt. There appears to still be a receptive young audience for economic conservatism, but social conservatism, particularly as it refers to gay issues, is another matter. The GOP doesn’t even have to become ardently pro-gay, it would suffice if it stopped making anti-gay rhetoric such a prominent part of their platform.

Parties can change and continue to exist. The Democrats used to be pretty appallingly racist and yet they changed. It isn’t easy to strike a balance between loyalty to core principles and flexibility to changing times and demographics, but if the Republicans think greater purity will help them, then they will run a tiny-government social conservative in 2012, and perhaps after being crushed they will get the message.

Re: Memo To Republicans: A Pure Minority Is Still A Minority

Lynx — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:30:16 -0000

C. Stanley, I can see how your compromise version could work for marriage. I happen to disagree with the premise that the word “marriage” belongs to religious institutions (that would mean that no atheist, gay or straight, could ever be married) but I could meet socons half way if it meant full civil rights for GLBT people.

I’m more unsure about abortion though. You say:

Regarding abortion too, the platform should support meaningful but Constitutionally sound restrictions on abortion, while also promoting practices that can help reduce the demand for abortions.

I’ll freely admit I’m basing this purely on instinct, but I happen to think that a vast majority of Americans, whatever their convictions, fall somewhere in the fuzzy middle between “A single celled zygote is a full human child!” and “If it hasn’t been born it’s just a lump of flesh!”, even if these two extremes seem to dominate the public debate. This dominance is a problem, but so is the fact that emotions run high even in the fuzzy middle. The definition of “meaningful but constitutionally sound restrictions on abortion” is likely to vary wildly even in the fuzzy middle. In the end you have to draw a line in a process that has no clearly defined lines. No matter where you draw it, you are likely to have many very unhappy people on the other side of it.

I should note that this is an issue for both parties and I’ve no clue how it can be resolved to any degree if satisfaction.

Re: The Temptation of Sarah Palin

Lynx — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:01:55 -0000

Palin went on to explain that no one, not even her husband knew (”I was out-state, nobody knows”) and it would have been “easy to make it all go away, take care of it.”

I have no doubt that it was a wrenching decision, but I have very serious doubts about the above statement. Amniocentesis is done no earlier than the 10th week of pregnancy, and usually between the 14th and 16th week. The public could be in the dark, but is she saying she kept the pregnancy a secret from her own husband? She was over three months pregnant, and Todd didn't know? Sounds highly suspect to me.

Re: Where the Ship Hijacked by “Pirates” Was Headed, Mercy Mission: A Lost Story

Lynx — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:08:04 -0000

Silly little question that's been nagging at me Dr. E. Why do you put quotation marks around the word "pirates"? At first I thought it was some sort of strange sign of sympathy (what with the fish being gone and the failed state and blah blah blah), but it seems clear that you have little sympathy for them. Why aren't they full fledged non-quoted pirates to you? I apologize if you have already explained this and I missed it.

Quite frankly, though I'm quite happy the captain is OK and am all for getting rid of piracy, it seems like a rather puny thing to concentrate on. The whole of Africa is such a stunning array of tragedies and injustices that the plight of whether superpowerful first world countries should resolve their occasional hostage situations by payment or by blowing the criminals into oblivion seems a small issue indeed by comparison.

Re: Obama's world-wide op-ed on the need to reform the global economy

Lynx — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:24:45 -0000

Tiny correction: El Pais is in all of Spain, not just Madrid. It's the biggest paper in the country too.

Re: Learn About Stem Cell Research Before Rejecting It (Guest Voice)

Lynx — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:58:11 -0000

I should note initially that I'm very much in favor of ESC research. I would also not deny that there is a great deal of ignorance about the issue, on what the cells are, where they come from and their potential. However I feel this post fails to address the core objection of those that oppose ESC research and therefore fails to adequately refute said objection.

The core objection of course is that these cells are derived from human embryos in a way that necessitates the destruction of the embryo. Those that oppose this research assert that a human embryo is more or less equivalent to a human being and is therefore endowed with rights, most notably the right to live.

Now I disagree vehemently with that assertion and also think that it generally exists within the context of religious beliefs about souls that have no place in scientific discussions, but unless you address this argument, you cannot simply say that the issue is that people who oppose ESC research are lacking in knowledge of the subject. You can be 100% conscious of the intricacies of the research and still oppose it, so clearly ignorance is not the only or even the chief issue, I think.

Re: Good!

Lynx — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:40:54 -0000

Actually Andy, the fruitcake brigade that (briefly) brought up McCain's legitimacy was even more strange than the current crop. In Obama's case it's all far faaaar-right wingers and some just plain crazy people. In McCain's case it was an unholy alliance of far faar left wingers crazy people and far faaaaaaaaaaar right wingers who were anti-illegal immigration crusaders and considered McCain little more than an illegal.

Re: Obama Cabinet Meets With Approval

Lynx — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:54:28 -0000

I think your post misses a rather important difference between 2000 and 2008. I don't dispute that the right may be calmer than the left this time around, but I don't think that is based on their fundamental natures. Rather, I believe it is based on the fact that Bush's very legitimacy as president was very much in question. Frankly, most liberals thought (and continue to think) that he simply did not win the election. Even if one admits Bush actually won, Obama very obviously has more of a mandate than Bush had in 2000. I think it is this, and not the underlying choices, that is driving the numbers.

Re: Reflections on the Sarah Palin Turkey Video

Lynx — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:33:24 -0000

This little episode actually managed to do something the campaigned failed to: make me feel sorry for Palin. Ok yes I see where it could be considered funny to be seen in front of Turkeys being slaughtered just after pardoning one, but the sheer unhealthy fascination with the video seems a tad much. Where the hell do you think your turkeys come from anyway? The lady was doing a silly little holiday ceremony. It. Is. Not. Important.

As for the issue of seeing food, I agree with that. I fall into the only slightly guilty meat eater category. I don't really feel terrible about eating meat per se, but I do feel very uncomfortable with the idea of mistreated and cramped animals being miserable their whole lives before their death. To what extent I can I try to eat foods that reflect that (free range chickens etc.). It's a very good deal all in all. It's more expensive, which forces you to eat less meat, which is good for your health anyway. I don't object to either omnivorous or vegetarian diets (though I do believe that it is not permissible to subject a growing child to veganism because of the health risks), but I do think we would benefit from a closer acquaintance with the food we eat, not just the killing part but also the raising part.

Re: Are You Smarter Than A Politician?

Lynx — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:01:49 -0000

Hmmm, I did worse than anyone :( 84.85%, 28 out of the 33.

#4 - The Lincoln Douglass debates
#8 - . Roosevelt and the justices
#9 - . What only the federal government can do
#11 -. The federalists and the bill of rights
#17 -. Sputnik (I said it was the dog)

Re: 'What We Owe George W. Bush': Le Figaro, France

Lynx — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:41:26 -0000

"As President Bush prepares to leave the stage, one of his staunchest political friends and allies, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose-Maria Aznar - who was kicked out of office for supporting the Iraq invasion after an al-Qaeda terrorist attack in Madrid"

Sorry William but thats an inaccurate statement, or at least the way it's put strongly suggests a storyline that isn't the real one. Aznar supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. He sent Spanish troops into Iraq against a massive public outcry (91% of Spaniards were against it). The terrorist attack occured much later, just a few days shy of the general elections. Right after the bombings he insisted that the attack had been perpetrated by our homegrown terrorist group, ETA. Not an unreasonable assumption, most people thought that at first. But it became clear within several hours that it had been Islamic terrorists. Aznar continued to insist on ETA. The fury generated by the combination of the attack (which was understood to be a retaliation against our involvement in Iraq, an involvement Spaniards opposed massively) and suspicion that Aznar was trying to pin it on ETA to save his political hide pushed what was previously an expected close win to a close loss for him.

Zapatero then carried out his campaign promise of taking our troops out of Iraq. Spanish troops remain in Afghanistan, two were killed just last week.

Re: Which Language Do You Dream In?

Lynx — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:25:29 -0000

My dreams go back and forth between English and Spanish, as do my thoughts and (at home) my words. I'll think in English if I'm speaking English at the time or if I'm thinking of topics I associate with the language (like American politics). Since most of my verbal interaction is in Spanish but the bulk of text I read is in English (I read scientific texts for work and American politics for fun) it's pretty much 50/50.

I've got another one of those curious life stories that have made me fully fluent in both languages, though I never bothered to learn a third (I hit myself for it now). Some quirkiness is eternal, especially in the matter of false friends (words that seem like translations that actually mean something different: Sensible/sensitive to Sensato/sensitivo was always a hard one for me) and exclamations. Even when I'm speaking in English with my father I'll often add a "no?" to the end of sentences, which is the Spanish equivalent of "you know". .

No te preucupes demasiado Dorian, el español nunca se te irá del todo. Si algún día vuelves a Ecuador, lo recordarás perfectamente en cuestion de semanas, como mucho.

(Don't worry Dorian, you'll never really lose your Spanish. if you ever go back to Ecuador, you'll remember it in a matter of weeks, at most),

How's your Dutch?

Re: Are We ‘The Moderate Voice’?

Lynx — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:13:15 -0000

Rudi don't mistake some of your comments being deleted for a general practice of deleting dissent. Comments at PG are deleted in accordance to our comments guidelines, with less tolerance being given to repeat offendors. They are very likely deleted at this site too, whether you are aware of it or not. I won't get into the specifics and politics of how tolerant some people are of dissent because the purpose of this thread is not to start a blog-war. Suffice it to say that I believe you lack some of the relevant data in that regard.

This site leans center left, Poligazette leans center right. I don't see what is lost by recognizing that.

ps: I really ought to change my handle here to reflect my name there, but I wish there were a way of doing that without seeming to completely disappear and show up with a new name, does anyone know how I could do that?