Archive for jonah goldberg

Dear pro-forced birthers: "What causes more abortions than not having contraception?"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

abortion choice pro-forced birthers

Pro-forced birthers don't seem to have much depth, knowledge, or insight when it comes to how babies are made, how contraception works, or what women's health care agencies actually do.

Here's a tweet I just received, along with my reply:

Here is one of many excellent replies:

'Nuff said.

Sadly, "Franky's" tweet is typical of so many I receive from pro-forced birthers about women's reproductive rights, with one exception: He was civil.

With that, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Jonah Goldberg's column on the Hobby Lobby case takes as given the distortion of scientific facts at the core of the case. ("Alito agrees: Your birth control is not your boss' business," Op-Ed, June 30)

Overwhelming evidence has shown that emergency contraception does not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and does not cause the termination of an existing pregnancy. Therefore, emergency contraception it is not an abortifacient, contrary to what the Supreme Court justices and Goldberg contend.

Such uncritical endorsements of distorted science are the source of much misinformation, as I have discovered in my own research on barriers to access to emergency contraception. It is sad that the highest court in the nation has propagated this false belief and created another barrier for access to safe, effective and evidenced-based pregnancy prevention.

Tracey Wilkinson, MD, Los Angeles

..

Goldberg compares requiring employers to provide contraceptive health insurance to their employees to hypothetically requiring these companies to pay for their employees to attend a "Game of Thrones" convention.

Goldberg ignores the fact that every time a couple engages in unprotected intercourse, they are putting the woman's life at risk. According to a study published in the medical journal the Lancet, 18.5 women died in childbirth for every 100,000 live births in the U.S. in 2013.

The intimate relations between couples are no mere game. The ability to obtain and use contraceptives is a matter at the heart of family life.

Goldberg and the five men who make up the U.S. Supreme Court majority in the recent Hobby Lobby case have shown the world that they place little value on the lives of women.

Eleanor Egan, Costa Mesa

..

I suspect that because Hobby Lobby is so deeply religious, it would not support a woman's right to have an abortion. What causes more abortions than not having contraception?

Sarah Maze, Orange

Via .ecobumperstickers.com

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Use of the death penalty by government legitimizes violence as a solution to problems."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

capital punishment death penalty pro-life my ass

The interview with Sister Helen Prejean starts at about 5:30:

"We gotta change this thing."

"'Why are you people so vengeful...?'"

"I cannot turn a switch and say, "YOU are not human like the rest of us, and we can kill you."

"The human being who did that outrageous act is more than that one act in their life... It's a journey to get there."

"Lookin' at bodies... the victim's here, the guy on the gurney here, where are we? What have we accomplished?"

I have never supported the use of the government using murder, aka the death penalty, as punishment for a crime, no matter how heinous the act. It's more costly, it doesn't deter killers from killing, innocent lives (most often poor and non-white lives) are mistakenly snuffed out, and it puts the "good guys" in the same position as the bad guys by putting a living, breathing human being to death (even the scummiest, sickest, most vile beings) when there are other options available.

More violence is not the answer. Inflicting more pain is not the answer.

And with that, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Jonah Goldberg admits that whenever perpetrators of especially heinous crimes, such as Oklahoma's Clayton Lockett, are executed, they are "entitled to a relatively painless and humane execution under the law." ("Clayton Lockett: A just execution, regardless," Opinion, May 6).

He also acknowledges that "deterrence may have some validity, but it alone cannot justify the death penalty. It is wrong to kill a man just to send a message to others."

He even says that "innocent people have been sent to death row. Even one such circumstance is outrageous and unacceptable."

Although he explains why he's not persuaded by some arguments against the death penalty and states that he is a death penalty supporter, it is remarkable that he fails to express even a single rationale for that support. If it's revenge, I think he should have the courage to admit it and then present a justification for his belief.

Don Payne

Santa Ana

***

In his column on the botched Oklahoma execution, Goldberg goes over the arguments for and against the death penalty. Unfortunately, he did not include what I consider the most compelling argument against its use.

The use of the death penalty by government legitimizes violence as a solution to problems. This endorsement of violence sets a tone in society that is counterproductive and damaging.

Murder is a problem for society. That we attempt to solve the murder problem by killing people reflects the same simplistic logic used by so many murderers.

Stephanie Neiman presented a problem to Lockett: She refused to say she wouldn't report Lockett to the police. He tried to solve his problem by killing Neiman.

Solving problems by killing didn't work for Lockett, and it has not worked for society.

John La Grange

Solana Beach

Here's another interview with Sister Helen Prejean that is a must-see. She discusses lack of transparency and also how we "imitate the worst behavior" by "killing our criminals in order to be safe."

 

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"GOP politicians still care." Sure they do... about themselves.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

gop politicians Dear America I don't care

How much more proof do we need that GOP politicians care very little about us, but care very deeply about money, power, domination, and prestige? While Democrats fight for equal pay, equal rights, voting rights, women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, free public education, health care for all, and a safe, clean environment, GOP politicians do whatever it takes to benefit their donors. And the donors do whatever it takes to buy elections and destroy their competitors while clawing for status, increasing their own assets, and boosting their own clout.

It is not about caring. It is all about control.

This is not to say that Dems don't indulge in that kind of thing, too. Of course they do. But anyone can see by the restrictive, extremist laws attempted by and/or passed by GOP state and national legislators (racial, gender, sexual discrimination, trans-vaginal probes, personhood for blastocysts, and repeal Obamacare 50 times, anyone?) that the health and welfare of the American people are not exactly first and foremost on what's left of narrow GOP minds.

What makes it even worse is their blatant hypocrisy. We see them all over the media indulging in their self-righteous "pro-life" posturing. This as they support polluting (killing) our planet, using capital punishment to kill the (all too often wrongly) convicted, and Second Amendmenting anyone who looks at them cross-eyed. And their base eats it up.

GOP politicians boast about their "family values." Yet they play the base card while cheating on their wives in Argentina or concealing their own sexual orientation while pushing anti-gay initiatives.

All this because they care.

Think about it:

Which party is it that came up with the slogan "drill, baby, drill" despite the dire consequences and debilitating illnesses we're already seeing as a result of their deadly reverence of fossil fuels?

Which party is it that resorts to cheating (gerrymandering, Voter I.D. laws, cutting back early voting, caging) in order to win elections?

Which party is it that refuses to pay women the same salaries as men?

Which party is it that rallied around their "Patriot" O' the Day, racist scofflaw Cliven Bundy?

Which party is it that sworetogod they would turn over a new leaf and reach out to a more diverse spectrum of voters... and then did just the opposite?

Hint: Not Democrats.

And with that, here are today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re “Obama's Keystone trap,” Opinion, April 22

Goldberg writes: “GOP politicians still care about the environment, but they take their cues from public opinion, not the green lobby.”

Who does Goldberg consider to be the green lobby? The vast majority of climate scientists whose opinion is disregarded? If the GOP cares as much about the environment as he suggests, where are the party's environmental leaders?

Climate change is not simply another problem among the others (habitat loss, ocean acidification and more) that Goldberg lists; it underlies these problems.

Mary Clumeck

Santa Ana

***

We can all sleep a bit better knowing that “GOP politicians still care about the environment.”

And I assume that we can look forward to the GOP leadership on increasing the minimum wage, equal pay for women, contraceptive coverage in medical plans, increasing the marginal tax rate on the very wealthy, providing routes to citizenship for illegal immigrants, legalization of marijuana and recognition for gay marriages.

After all, Goldberg assures us that GOP politicians “take their cues from public opinion.”

Ed Grubbs

Spring Valley, Calif.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Six words about Jonah Goldberg that will brighten your day

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

jonah goldberg

Here is a bonus Los Angeles Times letter to the editor about one of my least favorite people, Jonah Goldberg, because our voices matter... especially when they bring sunshine to our politically gloomy days:

Re “Jonah Goldberg,” Opinion, March 25

Six words in the lower right corner of the Opinion section brightened a gloomy morning: “Jonah Goldberg has the day off.”

Tom Turnley
Santa Ana

Here are six more that will brighten your day: I won't speculate about Malaysian airplanes.
FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Two of the most wrongheaded statements in the history of column writing"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

keep calm we won

Today's Los Angeles Times letter to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re "GOP: Grand old potshots," Opinion, Oct. 22

Jonah Goldberg makes two of the most wrongheaded statements in the history of column writing:

He writes: "We've seen the influence of big business decline in the GOP as new populist PACs have declared war on … K Street." The billionaire Koch brothers, the Heritage Foundation and the Scaife Foundations are populist?

Goldberg writes: "The public has grown more conservative during the Obama presidency." Did he forget who won the last election?

Alan Segal

San Diego

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Bob Costas takes on conservative Jonah Goldberg, who "sees liberal boogeymen lurking behind every issue."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

snap6

Today's Los Angeles Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re “Redskins: No harm, no foul,” Opinion, Oct. 15

In response to my remarks on NBC about the Washington Redskins team name controversy, Jonah Goldberg writes of his love and respect for words. So why then play so fast and loose with them?

Goldberg twice refers to my comments as a “tirade.” I defy any fair-minded person to view the two-minute piece in its entirety and find anything in its tone or content that remotely resembles a tirade. He later refers to my “crusade.” How does addressing a prominent football-related issue one time on the very night Washington was playing on NBC qualify as a crusade?

Goldberg writes: “It strains credulity to believe the team name was intentionally pejorative, or that fans or ownership see it that way today.” I went out of my way to stipulate that very thing. Or don't the words I actually used matter if they get in the way of whatever point Goldberg is trying to make in this case?

Goldberg is usually cogent, but we all have our blind spots and hot buttons. For Goldberg, it is the tendency to see liberal boogeymen lurking behind every issue. Always. Yet I clearly delineated the difference between the often silly politically correct objections to other team names and the singularly objectionable “Redskins.”

Every dictionary I have consulted has defined “redskins” with words such as “offensive,” “insulting,” “pejorative” and “derogatory.” No such words are part of the definition of Braves, Chiefs, Warriors or any other team name associated with Native Americans. One would think a professed lover of words like Goldberg would appreciate that clear and compelling distinction, and recognize that many of those who have problems with the name Redskins are motivated not by liberalism or political correctness but by common sense and common decency.

Bob Costas
New York

***

Goldberg misses the point. As a mixed-blood Muscogee and former chairman of the Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission, I can tell you that the term “redskin” is never used by American Indians to describe ourselves. It is a term popularized by whites and almost always used in a pejorative sense.

More than 20 years after the NBA's Baltimore Bullets moved to Washington, it was felt that the name “Bullets” sent the wrong message; the team became the Washington Wizards in 1997. Likewise, “Redskins” sends the wrong message, especially for a team located in the nation's capital.

By the way, Goldberg's assertion that he is offended by the Philadelphia Eagles being the namesake of the National Recovery Administration's Blue Eagle symbol is both historically correct and profoundly silly.

Jack Shakely
Rancho Mirage

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Jonah "Goldberg either owns stock in Exxon, lives in a 4th dimension or is waiting for seat confirmation on the mother ship."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Today's L.A. Times letters to the editors, because our voices matter:

Gasoline doesn't come cheap

Re "Gasoline, diesel prices keep rising," March 13, and "Obama's pump debacle," Opinion, March 13

I would like to spirit Jonah Goldberg back to the land of reality, if just for a few minutes.

1. The gasoline we are currently paying high prices for was refined some time ago when cost/prices were less.

2. We cannot drill ourselves back to $2.50-a-gallon gasoline any more than we can find a nickel cup of coffee.

3. The profits realized by the petroleum industry have increased exponentially the last few years.

4. President Obama, along with a majority of climatologists, knows that human activity — such as burning fossil fuels — contributes to global climate change.

5. Oil reserves are finite, therefore we must find alternate fuel sources at the risk of occasional source failures.

6. Goldberg either owns stock in Exxon, lives in a fourth dimension or is waiting for seat confirmation on the mother ship.

Stephen S. Anderson
Hacienda Heights

***

Goldberg conveniently omits the most important fact: Oil prices are set by a world market. Exxon's price is the same regardless of whether its oil comes from Indonesia or from under Goldberg's feet. Current factors include fears over Iran, rising use in emerging markets and gaming by hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds, and have little to do with Obama's policies.

True, we may be headed for $8-a-gallon gas, simply because of our inability to find, deliver and refine enough of the stuff given inexorably increasing world demand.

In that light, and given the detestable governments that profit from this situation, the president's efforts to develop American energy alternatives seem essential. Conservatives need to get their noses out of their economic reports long enough to try to find a vision of tomorrow as something other than just more of today.

Steven Duff
Silverado

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare