ArchPundit

Call It A Comeback

Fundie Fun

Fundie Fun

Equal Rights Amendment Anti-Family

ArchPundit 0 Comment

Yes, that’s right.  Prohibiting unequal treatment due to gender would be against families and be pro-choice. Fran Eaton says so

This can be seen as nothing less than rubbing the prolife/profamily movement’s face in the fact that Democrat liberals are in control of Illinois and, well, they have to live up to their quid pro quo agreement with the pro-abort, anti-traditional family lobby in Springfield.Mark this day as the day Mike Madigan has shed the pro-life disguise he has been hiding behind for years as he so wittingly convinced gullible pro-life and pro-family lobbyists for years that he’s “one of them.”

The tragedy is that phony disguise has kept Madigan in power for so long. I, for one, am weary of having our noses disgracefully rubbed in the fact that we strive to defeat the ERA in order to protect innocent life, defend traditional families and hold on to the greatness of a constitution that already treats the sexes equally.

And has anyone pointed out to Mr. Madigan that someday he may have to explain to one of his daughter Lisa’s little ones that == thanks to Grandpa and the maneuvers he pulled while Speaker of the Illinois House in 2008 — that when they turn 18, those little girls will be required to register for the draft?

The obvious question being why shouldn’t women have to register for the draft if men do?

The radical danger to families:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

You have to be batshit paranoid insane to believe the above is a bad idea

Fundie Fun

Heckuva Job

ArchPundit 1 Comment

Zahm screws up the petition challenge in Illinois 14.

Local conservative political operative Jon Zahm, a volunteer on state Sen. Chris Lauzen’s campaign, was one of the two objectors to claim that many of the signatures on Dilger’s petition are invalid, putting him below the minimum amount needed to run for the office.

In a three-page report issued Thursday, Illinois State Board of Elections hearing officer Kelly McCloskey Cherf recommended that the full board reject that objection on a technicality. Cherf stated that the objectors should have identified the specific objection for each signature in an attachment to their objection petition.

Fundie Fun

Mike Damone: A Man’s Man

ArchPundit 3 Comments

Since the GOP’s Daddy Complex is showing, I think JSF’s comment deserves elevation:

OK, or how about in Fast Times.

Damone gets Stacy knocked up.  She says she wants an abortion.  But Mike Damone is a real man.  He isn't paying for any abortion.  And then, he treats Stacy like the slut that she is.

Congrats to you, Mike Damone.  You too win a Stannie Award for excellence in cinemagraphic heroism in the face of abortion.

Mike Damone, A Man’s Man

He also has great advice for getting women 

Fundie Fun

But Fran is Very Touchy about Beating Women

ArchPundit 1 Comment

Perhaps she should have a talk with Jill

I’ll be honest.  I wasn’t sure what the term “beat it like a rented mule” meant at the time, but it was easy to figure out he meant to disrespect and degrade Senator Clinton.  I am guilty myself of doing that among friends, don’t get me wrong, but for a U.S. Senator to say something like that about a colleague and a female to boot — no matter how private the meeting, even among strangers — was appalling.

I was thinking about the term “beat her like a rented mule” again today when I saw the Obama story.  Urban Dictionary has three definitions for the term.  Read them for yourself HERE, I’m too embarrassed to copy and paste them on Illinois Review.

You tell me which one YOU think the good Senator McCain meant when he answered my question “How do you intend to beat Hillary Clinton?”

It may be how the “big boys” talk behind closed panel doors, but McCain revealed that day how out of touch he is and how he has no chance of gaining the support of the conservative movement’s female half, and thus, the GOP nomination.

Fundie Fun

Daily Dolt: Jill Stanek

ArchPundit 1 Comment

These aren’t issues, they are subscriptions:

One of the best scenes in the Godfather movie trilogy was in “Godfather II,” when Kay Corleone (Diane Keaton) told her husband Michael (Al Pacino) she was taking their two children and leaving him. The dialogue:

Michael: Do you expect me to let you take my children from me?…. Don’t you know that’s an impossibility, that that could never happen, that I’d use all my power to keep something like that from ever happening?…. I know you blame me for losing the baby. Yes. I know what that meant to you. Kay. I swear I’ll make it up to you…. I’ll change. And you’ll forget about this miscarriage, and we’ll have another child, and we’ll go on, you and I, we’ll go on.

kay.jpgKay: Oh – oh, Michael, Michael, you are blind. It wasn’t a miscarriage. It was an abortion, an abortion, Michael! Just like our marriage is an abortion, something that’s unholy and evil. I didn’t want your son, Michael! I wouldn’t bring another one of your sons into this world! It was an abortion, Michael. It was a son, a son, and I had it killed, because this must all end. I know now that it’s over. I knew it then. There would be no way, Michael, no way you could ever forgive me, not with this Sicilian thing that’s been going on for 2,000 years….

SLAP.

Michael: You won’t take my family!

And she doesn’t.

That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man who a woman had just told she aborted his baby. Compare that to the modern day cowardly male response, “It’s your choice. Whatever you decide, I’ll support you.” Or worse, his threat to abandon her if she does not abort.

It was this fierce devotion to family that strangely endeared us to the Corleone men despite their otherwise heinous behavior.

 More recently

In Mr. Brooks, the teenage daughter of serial killer Earl Brooks (Costner) turns up pregnant midway through her first semester of college. When Jane tells her parents, Earl emphatically states abortion is out of the question and offers to raise the baby. Jane is equally emphatically abortion minded until that moment, when she says she will reconsider. Typical. If a mother in a crisis pregnancy is offered love and support, she will most often choose life.

I won’t give away the end of Mr. Brooks except to say the prospect of his seeing future grandchild became Earl’s motivation for a life or death decision.

All of this is way twisted, I know. But similar to Godfather II, even a schizophrenic serial killer knows abortion is wrong, and similar to Godfather II, this became a redeeming quality of one who had no others.

Mr. Brooks’ pro-life stance was an obviously planned juxtaposition.

On one hand he was a serial killer no better than Dahmer and Gacy.

On the other, he was pro-life. Of of all possible character attributes, the writer and director chose this as Mr. Brooks’ one featured nobility, something they decided demonstrated the exact opposite of the schizophrenic killer mentality.

Why is that?

The comments are even more, ahem, interesting.  I know and respect many people who are pro-life. You aren’t helping their cause.

Fundie Fun The Adults are Back In Charge

Carefully Monitored Torture

ArchPundit 2 Comments

Isn’t so bad according to Fran over at Illinois Review

Seems like good enough reasons to push these cold-blooded murderers ’til just short of the breaking point, doesn’t it?  Waterboarding is carefully monitored torture — something they can avoid if they tell what they know.

And because these radical extremists decapitate innocent journalists and strap bombs to children, we know they will not fight according to traditional war decorum, they choose to operate outside the protection of the Geneva Convention Rules.

Careful monitoring of torture is apparently fine.  But torturing someone without careful monitoring—ooooohhhhh noooooo.  We don’t do that.

In other fun, George Dienhart suggests that since George Bush isn’t doing the same things as Musharraf, it’s silly to criticize the President. It is left unclear as to when one might start complaining, but let me suggest a few criteria:

  • Politicizing the Justice Department
  • Ignoring Habeas Corpus enshrined in 1215
  • Ignoring the 4th Amendment (no one is against wiretapping calls, they just want warrants–even if the warrants can be granted retroactively)
  • Torture–something we specifically forbade because of a previous tyrant’s abuses
  • Issuing signing statements that directly contradict US Law
  • and more if you want

He’s not protecting the free world by damaging the rule of law.

But everything can be blamed on Bill Clinton

We knew that Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan were bad. At least I knew. Apparently, the Clinton administration had no strong feelings either way. On May 28, 1998 Pakistan announced that it had successfully conducted five nuclear tests You remember 1998. It was toward the end of the Clinton administration. Pakistan could have built nuclear weapons during the Reagan and Bush administrations. They did not. Again, we see that Bill Clinton is responsible for a major foreign policy blunder. This one could potentially result in thousands of American deaths.

Nice story, but it’s not true:

India’s 1974 testing of a nuclear “device” gave Pakistan’s nuclear program new momentum. Through the late 1970s, Pakistan’s program acquired sensitive uranium enrichment technology and expertise. The 1975 arrival of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan considerably advanced these efforts. Dr. Khan is a German-trained metallurgist who brought with him knowledge of gas centrifuge technologies that he had acquired through his position at the classified URENCO uranium enrichment plant in the Netherlands. Dr. Khan also reportedly brought with him stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe. He was put in charge of building, equipping and operating Pakistan’s Kahuta facility, which was established in 1976. Under Khan’s direction, Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities.

In 1985, Pakistan crossed the threshold of weapons-grade uranium production, and by 1986 it is thought to have produced enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. Pakistan continued advancing its uranium enrichment program, and according to Pakistani sources, the nation acquired the ability to carry out a nuclear explosion in 1987.

Why Does Illinois Review Hate America?

Daily Dolt Fundie Fun

Daily Dolt: Dennis “GET OFF MY LAWN” Byrne

ArchPundit 10 Comments

Seriously, someone at the Trib smack Dold over the head for allowing this crap in his paper.

The problem with dismissing the Carroll study because it is epidemiological is that you’ll also have to dismiss a multitude of public health studies, including ones claiming a link between radon and lung cancer. These are the same epidemiological studies that alarmed millions of Americans, frightening them into buying radon detectors and creating a huge radon mitigation business. No study is perfect, and Carroll’s shortcoming is that his data do not allow comparisons of individual women over time. But other major studies have, and according to one unchallenged compressive analysis of those studies, they show that a pregnant woman who has never had a child before and aborts in the first term increased her chance of breast cancer by 50 percent.

Let me offer up the model from the paper

Two explanatory variables are selected for modeling: (abortion)and (fertility).The trends for abortion and fertility are shown in Figures 8 and 9 for countries considered. The Mathematical Model is then:

Yi = a + b1x1i + b2x2i + ei

where Y represents cumulated cohort incidence of breast cancer within a particular age group; a is intercept, b1 and b2 are coefficients, and e is random error.

That creates a guffaw from those who know statistics at all.

He has a correlation Coefficient of .98.

Figure3.jpg

Those who understand correlation coefficients are shooting liquid through their nose if they were drinking anything right now. I had to look at it about 20 minutes to understand this moron was trying to sell a .98 correlation coefficient.
What he has done is take mass data that shows one factor increasing (abortion) and another decreasing (fertility) and then regresses it upon a variable that is increasing-incidence of breast cancer.

So if I were to regress the number of abortions and the fertility rate on the number of televisions sold per person, I’d get about the same result over this period of time. So I can, according to this dumbass, claim credibly that television leads to breat cancer. Or, as the Orac points out, the reduction in the number of pirates has led to global warming.
There’s a variety of problems in this study starting with he throws out independent variables well established by other studies. In the case of linear regression, the problem is that if you do not include other variables, you cannot control for those variables and so not are just theoretical variables excluded, but well established variables demonstrated over and over are excluded from the analysis. To say the least, this is an underspecified

A regression model is underspecified if the regression equation is missing one or more important predictor variables. This situation is perhaps the worst-case scenario, because an underspecified model yields biased regression coefficients and biased predictions of the response. That is, in using the model, we would consistently underestimate or overestimate the population slopes and the population means. To make already bad matters even worse, the mean square error MSE tends to overestimate ?2, thereby yielding wider confidence intervals than it should.

No one accepts a .98 coefficient. No one. That is essentially regressing one variable on itself and in this case, it’s the regressing less restrictive abortion laws with a number of factors that have led to an increase in breast cancer. Some cancer patients even need Home Care Assistance.

Ecological inference is not an acceptable means of imputing causation on individuals from macro level data and this study violates the principle. One might use it to explore potential causes and whether there is a gross correlation, but not to determine causality. For that one requires cohort information or some other way to address individual observations.

It’s junk science. Yet the Chicago Tribune keeps publishing a clown who insists there is a link, but is wholly unqualified to judge that and uses crappy studies to do it. Why?

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

Blog

Trump Campaign “Field”

Blog

Trying 2

Blog

Don’t Call It A Comeback

Uncategorized

More Like This