Head Noises

Catholic Women on Birth Control

Foxfier — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 03:09:00 +0000

You’ve probably heard that 98% statistic.

Here’s the short form of how they got it:

So the study tells us only that 98% of women of child-bearing age who want to have sex without having babies use some form of birth control. That qualifies as a sort of “d’uh” moment.

He’s got the long form, with details, at the link.

Honors for pointing it out first, and being a reporter who actually did reporting, goes to Mollie at Ricochet:

“So I guess we could say that among women aged 15-44 who had sex in the last three months but aren’t pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant, 87% of women who identify as Catholic used contraception. It’s worth pondering just who is left out of this 87%, other than, you know, everyone who doesn’t use contraception. Great stat, team journalist! I mean, the study was designed to find only women who would be most likely to use contraception. And it did.

Notable in the comments is someone making the argument that the Church’s current stance against the birth control, sterilization and abortion causing drug mandate is the same as arguing for laws preventing business on Sunday. Instantly on seeing that, I knew what I’d say if I had a Ricochet membership—“No, it’s like having a law that requires all businesses to be open.”

Well! Booger!

Foxfier — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 04:34:00 +0000

I’ve been pecking away on a post about libertarians and conservatives, then Paul Zummo hits most of my high points over at TAC. *puts post in the “worry about it later” folder*

Temptation.

Foxfier — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:38:00 +0000

I can’t say I’ve ever really been pulled to the whole Chippendales-guys type temptation, or even the temptation to actually wish harm on an enemy, but DANG breaking up leftover KFC thighs (extra crispy) for my daughter is a mother of a big temptation.

Libertarian:

Foxfier — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:34:00 +0000

one who thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to ban hiring an organization to give flu shots because they refuse to vivisect small humans on demand.

At least, that’s based off of the last few weeks… Also, Libertarian: one who can’t be bothered to find out what the HHS ruling on birth control and abortificants actually says.

I KNOW there are some who are better informed than that, but there are way too many taking the viewpoint of “if you don’t like slavery, don’t own a slave.”

Yes, my circles include a large number of liberal-tarians. How did you know?

From My Email

Foxfier — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:05:00 +0000

Slightly marred with the big symbolic catch-words rather than…um… stuff that needs thought, but not bad. When I’m a bit more “there” I’ll try updating it. Thinking Chesterton, Lewis, Ratzinger and such….

It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and then – just to loosen up and be a part of the crowd.

Inevitably, though, one thought led to another and soon I was more than just a social thinker.

I began to think alone — “to relax,” I told myself — but I knew it wasn’t true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time.

That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night at her mother’s.

I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don’t mix, but I couldn’t help myself.

I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau, Muir, Confucius, Camus and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, “What is it exactly that we are doing here?”

One day the boss called me in. He said, “Listen, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don’t stop thinking on the job, you’ll have to find another job.”

This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my conversation with the boss. “Honey,” I confessed, “I’ve been thinking…”
“I know you’ve been thinking,” she said, “and I want a divorce!” “But Honey, surely it’s not that serious.” “It is serious,” she said, her lower lip quivering.
“You think as much as college professors and college professors don’t make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won’t have any money!”
“That’s a fallacious syllogism,” I said impatiently.
She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional drama.
“I’m going to the library,” I snarled as I stomped out the door.

I headed for the library, in the mood for some John Locke. I roared into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors.
They didn’t open. The library was closed.
To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night.
Leaning on the unfeeling glass and whimpering for Emerson, a poster caught my eye, “Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?” it asked.

You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinkers Anonymous poster.
This is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker.

I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was “Porky’s.” Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting.
I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just seemed easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me.

Today I took the final step… I joined the Democratic Party…..

Deport The Strawmen

Foxfier — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:21:00 +0000

I’m sure it’s nothing new, but I’ve been seeing a really annoying argument pop up in the illegal immigration debates lately: either you must argue for rounding up and deporting all illegals, in one fell swoop, or you must accept the arguer’s proposed amnesty idea.b So, here’s my sleep deprived, we’re-all-sick vent/response.

What other crime do we solve all in one fell swoop by rounding up a large population, rather than working on preventing the crime, or trying to keep the criminals from profiting from the crime, or other passive types of enforcement? When is “but you won’t catch all the people who do it” a reason for to remove laws against it?

I do not like payroll taxes—I’d be delighted if we could make it so hiring someone was purely a matter of person A pays person B to do something—but I see no reason to encourage a large criminal underclass that doesn’t have to follow those payroll rules. I don’t like income taxes, but I see no reason to waive away the failure to pay those for illegals.

Basically, I support the same “solution” that I’ve heard from pretty much any sensible person who’s had to deal with the issues of illegal immigrants first hand—just apply the freaking rules. You don’t have to do sweeps to round everyone up, you just apply some common sense: got someone in jail? Make sure they’re really who they say they are, and are legally here. If they’re illegal, do not let them out on bail, they are a flight risk. Treat it like having a warrant out. Driving without ID, insurance and registration? Don’t let them drive off on their own say-so, ESPECIALLY not if they were just involved in an accident! (Bryan Suits, a radio guy currently down at KOGO and KFI, occasionally talks about when his pregnant wife was hit by a probable illegal without any paperwork. The cops helped him hit the road.) Check status when applying for anything from the gov’t. Basically, any time you have to verify identity on a deeper level than “show a photo ID,” check immigration status. Yes, that includes being hired.

Sure, some illegal aliens won’t be caught. Some murderers aren’t caught, and that’s no argument for murder.

I’d even be happy to adjust labor laws to make it so that some of the most common “under the counter” or kid-work type jobs—babysitting, mowing the lawn, help an older person around the house with odd-jobs—aren’t even reported. Wouldn’t it be great to be able to put up a sign that says “Hiring to paint wall, $20”? Get rid of the enforcement actions on lemonaid stands, etc…

And yes, the issue with all of this is that it would require the feds to do their job and deport known illegals.

Do These Sound Familiar To Anyone Else?

Foxfier — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 05:15:00 +0000

And no, I don’t mean from high school (I’ll bold the ones that jump out anyways) although now I’m wondering about the chicken and egg in that situation….

Stolen from Yorkshire (go read, there’s more, I just have a quick, random thought)

Rules for Power Tactics:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Sounds a lot like the sort of commenters I really dislike—always “I, I, I,” pull up “well, unlike you, I’m familiar with XYZ experience,” search for a “rule” that you’ve broken (usually getting it wrong, see: #13), mistake mockery for an argument (daily show, anyone?), enjoy trolling for reactions, jump out when they start losing, never let a bad event go to waste (no matter how they have to shoe-horn it in and caricature it to make it fit), brag about faults in their reasoning like it’s a good thing, and always always always deal in strawmen. WTF?

From My Email Box

Foxfier — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 01:13:00 +0000

This is amazing — it’s a simple mathematical exercise that can predict your favorite movie. It must have been created by a real genius. Don’t know how it works, but it works every time! Be honest and don’t look at the movie list below until you have done the math!

Ok, just humor me and do it!

Movie Quiz:

1. Pick a number from 1-9.

2. Multiply by 3.

3. Add 3.

4. Multiply by 3 again.

5. Now add all the digits of your answer together to find your predicted favorite movie in the list of 17 movies.

Movie List:

1. Gone With the Wind

2. E.T.

3. Blazing Saddles

4. Star Wars

5. Forrest Gump

6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

7. Jaws

8. Grease

9. The Obama Farewell Speech of 2013

10. Casablanca

11. Jurassic Park

12. Shrek

13. Pirates of the Caribbean

14. Titanic

15. Raiders of the Lost Ark

16. Home Alone

17. Mrs. Doubtfire

Now, ain’t that something…?

Pink Ribbon Buying Is ON!

Foxfier — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:24:00 +0000

Who knows if it will stick, but…. Komen is breaking off their long lasting partnership with Planned Parenthood, AND (h/t Darwin in the comments for the above link) they’re quietly dropping funding of embryo-destructive research!

To steal an observation, maybe they can redirect the formerly PP-directed grant towards mammograms, maybe some of the mobile ones?

Finally, the #1 pink ribbon group may not be an automatic dis-qualifier for buying stuff! (Of course I’m going to keep an eye out to see if they stick to it.)

So…..

Foxfier — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:46:00 +0000

Cain was “unqualified” because he didn’t expect to have anonymous accusations and wasn’t prepared to deal with them, and he didn’t expect the media to be utter twerps, but somehow Mitt is qualified when he HANDS OVER SOUNDBITES EVERY OTHER WEEK?!?!?

“I like to fire people.” “I’m not worried about the very poor.” I’m sure there’s more.

Argh! Give me the guy who SHOULDN’T know better!