Hannity claims Sunstein "wants to... force sterilizations"
james g. keegan jr.
to... force sterilizations"
http://mediamatters.org/items/200911240001
Citing no evidence whatsoever, Fox News host Sean Hannity baselessly
claimed that Cass Sunstein, director of the White House Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, "wants to... force sterilizations."
Hannity has previously echoed other right-wing commentators in offering
similar, false attacks on White House science and technology adviser
John Holdren.
elizabeth
I think we need to give tax breaks to those who choose to get
sterilized *before* breeding.
W.T.S.
news:jgkeegan-1BA72E...@news.individual.net...
forced sterilization! Everyone should be sterilized.
Baby, bad. Sterilization, good.
james g. keegan jr.
> "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jgkeegan-1BA72E...@news.individual.net...
>> In an outrageous and baseless smear, Hannity claims Sunstein "wants
>> to... force sterilizations"
>> http://mediamatters.org/items/200911240001
>> Citing no evidence whatsoever, Fox News host Sean Hannity baselessly
>> claimed that Cass Sunstein, director of the White House Office of
>> Information and Regulatory Affairs, "wants to... force sterilizations."
>> Hannity has previously echoed other right-wing commentators in offering
>> similar, false attacks on White House science and technology adviser
>> John Holdren.
> And just why is this an attack?
because it was a lie. you do understand that lies are bad, do you not?
--
"You know, I've seen some incredible pussies post to t.a over the
years, but after seeing his webboard shennannigans, I have to say that
Heishman is the pussiest of them all." Matt Pillsbury <m...@seesig.com>
Message-ID: m2oeso5...@seesig.com
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> On 2009-11-24 16:35:27 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> said:
>
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:jgkeegan-1BA72E...@news.individual.net...
> >> In an outrageous and baseless smear, Hannity claims Sunstein "wants
> >> to... force sterilizations"
> >> http://mediamatters.org/items/200911240001
> >> Citing no evidence whatsoever, Fox News host Sean Hannity baselessly
> >> claimed that Cass Sunstein, director of the White House Office of
> >> Information and Regulatory Affairs, "wants to... force sterilizations."
> >> Hannity has previously echoed other right-wing commentators in offering
> >> similar, false attacks on White House science and technology adviser
> >> John Holdren.
> > And just why is this an attack?
>
>
> because it was a lie. you do understand that lies are bad, do you not?
Perhaps he DID mean Holdren and not Sunsteen; after all, there's quite
a few Czars...
Obama's science czar suggested compulsory abortion, sterilization
By: David Freddoso
Commentary Staff Writer
07/14/09 4:55 PM EDT
Internet reports are now circulating that Obama's Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, penned a 1977
book that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and
even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population
control regime.
Given the general unreliability of Internet quotations, I wanted to go
straight to this now-rare text and make sure the reports were both
accurate and kept Holdren's writings in context. Generally speaking,
they are, and they do.
The Holdren book, titled Ecoscience and co-authored with Malthus
enthusiasts Paul and Anne Ehrlich, weighs in at more than 1,000 pages.
Of greatest importance to its discussion of how to limit the human
population is its disregard for any ethical considerations.
Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of “moral objections
to some proposals...especially to any kind of compulsion.” But his
approach is completely amoral. He implies that compulsory population
control is less preferable, because of some people's objections, but
he argues repeatedly that it is sometimes necessary, and necessity
trumps all ethical objections.
He writes:
Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some
countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends
in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary
measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than
some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.
Holdren refers approvingly, for example, to Indira Gandhi's government
for its then-recent attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:
India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory
sterilization, but moved toward implementing it...This decision was
greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi's government felt it had
little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment
further with educational programs and hope that social change will
generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian
population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially
penalties) to be effective.
When necessary, then, compulsory sterilization is justified. This
attitude suffuses the following passage, in which the possibility of
putting a “sterilant” into a population's drinking water is seriously
discussed. Holdren and his co-authors do not recommend this particular
method, but their objections to it are merely practical and health-
related, not moral or stemming from any concern for human freedom:
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion
that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary
fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult
political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the
technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one
appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance
would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be
uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by
individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity
among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side
effects; and it must have no effect on members of the oposite sex,
children, old people, pets, or livestock...Again, there is no sign of
such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side
effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such
agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need
for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against
particular groups or penalize children.
Even though they do not recommend it, note that Holdren and his co-
authors treat this as a serious policy proposal with serious drawbacks
-- not as an insane idea unworthy of consideration.
They look with more favor on this “milder” form of coercive
sterilization:
Of course, a government might require only implantation of the
contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual's
discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. Since having
a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many
more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation.
Holdren and his co-authors also tackle the problem of illegitimacy,
recognizing that it could be one consequence of a society which, in
its effort to limit births, downgrades the value of intact nuclear
families and encourages lifelong bachelorhood:
[R]esponsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate
childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this
disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up
for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not
capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be
possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions,
perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the
society.
Holdren's suggestion here is presented perfectly in context. It stands
alone in the text without any accompanying reservations.
President Obama has spoken repeatedly in favor of putting science
before ideology. The real debate, however, has never been about
whether ethics are needed in science, but rather over whose ethics
should determine where science will or will not go.
Nowhere has Obama suggested that science should be completely ethics-
free. But Holdren is his Science Czar all the same.
james g. keegan jr.
<984c2e15-ec46-4e7e...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > On 2009-11-24 16:35:27 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> said:
> >
> > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:jgkeegan-1BA72E...@news.individual.net...
> > >> In an outrageous and baseless smear, Hannity claims Sunstein "wants
> > >> to... force sterilizations"
> > >> http://mediamatters.org/items/200911240001
> > >> Citing no evidence whatsoever, Fox News host Sean Hannity baselessly
> > >> claimed that Cass Sunstein, director of the White House Office of
> > >> Information and Regulatory Affairs, "wants to... force sterilizations."
> > >> Hannity has previously echoed other right-wing commentators in offering
> > >> similar, false attacks on White House science and technology adviser
> > >> John Holdren.
> > > And just why is this an attack?
> >
> >
> > because it was a lie. you do understand that lies are bad, do you not?
>
> Perhaps he DID mean Holdren and not Sunsteen
people like you billy don't realize that words have meaning. that's why
you so frequently defend blatant lies as you tried to do here.
normal people understand that lies are bad, billy.
william mosco
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> In article
> <984c2e15-ec46-4e7e...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > james g. keegan jr. wrote:
> > > On 2009-11-24 16:35:27 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> said:
> > >
> > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:jgkeegan-1BA72E...@news.individual.net...
> > > >> In an outrageous and baseless smear, Hannity claims Sunstein "wants
> > > >> to... force sterilizations"
> > > >> http://mediamatters.org/items/200911240001
> > > >> Citing no evidence whatsoever, Fox News host Sean Hannity baselessly
> > > >> claimed that Cass Sunstein, director of the White House Office of
> > > >> Information and Regulatory Affairs, "wants to... force sterilizations."
> > > >> Hannity has previously echoed other right-wing commentators in offering
> > > >> similar, false attacks on White House science and technology adviser
> > > >> John Holdren.
> > > > And just why is this an attack?
> > >
> > >
> > > because it was a lie. you do understand that lies are bad, do you not?
> >
> > Perhaps he DID mean Holdren and not Sunstein
>
>
> people like you billy don't realize that words have meaning. that's why
> you so frequently defend blatant lies as you tried to do here.
>
"Perhaps" has a meaning too.
james g. keegan jr.
<083ae362-d630-4dd2...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
william mosco <wm5...@gmail.com> wrote:
yes, glad you recognize your cowardly hedge on this particular defense
of a violent, rightr-wing lie.
perhaps you even feel shame. you should.