The LunchJournal

Fellow Mississippians, you do not want to vote yes on Initiative 26, the "personhood amendment," even if you're pro-life. Why? It's a poorly-worded document, based on faulty understanding of basic biology, won't actually do what the people pushing for it say it will, and will open a nightmare of administrative and legal issues that will take massive amounts of time and taxpayer dollars to address. First of all, have you actually read the proposed amendment? Here's the proposal, in its entirety:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof." This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.

That's it. So, yeah, the basic idea of this thing is to define a fetus as a "person" so that abortion will become illegal. But what about cases of rape and incest? Tough luck. Even the proponents of the amendment admit they want rape and incest victims to be forced to carry to term.

Or even worse, what about ectopic pregnancies (where a fertilized egg--one that in this case will never grow into a human--gets stuck inside a fallopian tube, threatening the mother's life unless it's removed) or other cases where the mother's life is endangered and cannot be saved without causing possible harm to the fetus? The authors of this amendment would apparently have those women risk death.

But what about all those claims by proponents of the amendment that terminating a pregnancy in those cases will somehow be allowed? Read the amendment. Do you see anything in there that mentions anything about allowing abortion under those exceptions? Or that mentions whether or not the fetus is viable should be a factor? I don't. All it says is that a fetus would be considered a person, and, under existing law, that person would have to be treated with all the same rights as the mother. At the very least, a doctor would think twice before operating, lest he or she risk inviting a criminal investigation or wrongful death suit. Anyone who says otherwise either hasn't read the thing or is outright lying about it.

Now some proponents of the amendment have speculated that the legislature and courts will make allowances for those exceptions. But that's just speculation, and, really, what guarantee is there that they will? And how long will it take them to draft and enact those hypothetical laws? Since when have the legislature and courts been known to reliably do everything that the people want them to do, within a reasonable amount of time?



But that's all possibly a moot point anyway. The personhood amendment wouldn't actually make abortion illegal, since the right to an abortion is protected by federal law in Roe v. Wade, and this state law wouldn't trump that. (At least that's what I keep reading, though I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong here.) So, yeah, the one thing the vast majority of the proponents of this thing want it to do, is pretty much the one thing it won't do. But, hey, it will do all sorts of other incredibly stupid things that will no doubt waste lots and lots of taxpayer dollars and ruin people's lives thanks to all the inevitable administrative costs and litigation and criminal investigations that will arise as a result!

First of all, the idea of personhood beginning "at fertilization" is ridiculously out of touch with a basic understanding of human reproductive biology. The medically- and legally-recognized definition of "conception" is when a fertilized egg is implanted into the uterus. Somewhere around half of all fertilized eggs will never even reach the implantation stage. Of those, many will never even grow into a fetus for numerous reasons, with the result that "between 50% and 70% of zygotes never result in established pregnancies, much less birth."

Defining personhood at fertilization is incredibly problematic, then. This could make many forms of birth control illegal, as, in addition to reducing the chance of fertilization, they may also cause the uterus to be less likely to allow the implantation of an already-fertilized egg, causing that one-celled "person" to then "die." What about all the women who are prescribed birth control pills for purposes other than just preventing pregnancy? Well, the authors of this amendment are pretty much saying "screw them and their needs." And what about claims by proponents of the amendment that it won't outlaw birth control pills? Such as this site that "unequivocally states that Personhood will not outlaw the 'Pill'"? Again, they either don't understand basic reproductive science, or they're lying to you. (Heck, they even contradict themselves with that statement, since earlier in the same paragraph they mention it won't ban "most forms of the 'Pill,'" acknowledging that at least some forms would definitely be banned.)

Aside: Combine the banning of a large number of common forms of birth control, with the amendment not actually banning abortion, and you wind up with even more unwanted pregnancies, logically followed by more abortions. That's right! The personhood amendment could end up actually increasing the number of abortions being performed!



Most disturbing of all about this amendment is the potential for criminal investigation and prosecution of women who suffer miscarriages. If a fetus is legally a person, then it follows that the authorities have an obligation under the law to investigate its death.

That seems like something out of some bizarre dystopian sci-fi world, right? Prosecutors would never put a woman who's been through that terrible ordeal through an invasive criminal investigation, right? Or jail her for murder if they believe she engaged in behavior during the pregnancy that may have contributed to the miscarriage? OH WAIT... THEY ALREADY DO THAT IN SOUTH CAROLINA (where a kind of fetal rights law exists), resulting in numerous arrests in cases where a fetus has miscarried, not only due to alcohol or drug use during pregnancy, but for other crimes such as failure to get proper prenatal care or attempted suicide. (Naturally, the tendency is to lock these dangerous women away, rather than put them in rehab or mental health care) And it happens in other states, too. Then there are all the cases where courts have forced women to undergo risky procedures to protect a fetus that could potentially be viable. Most notably the case of a Washington, DC, woman, seriously ill, who, against her wishes and the advice of her doctors, was ordered by a court to undergo a risky c-section to try to save her unborn child, which ended up killing her and the baby.

But I'm sure things like that won't happen here, all because the "Yes on 26" folks say it won't... right?



Finally, don't take my word on it, look this stuff up yourself, like I did while writing this. It seems particularly telling that the amendment's supporters basically just answer the concerns about personhood with blanket "no it won't"-style rebuttals, lacking any references to case law or scientific data, and that their ad campaign mainly makes the blatantly pandering (and I'd say fairly blasphemous) accusation that if you don't vote for this, you're mocking God. I'd also encourage you to read the opinions of various people who oppose the amendment and are far more knowledgeable in the fields of medicine and law than I am.



Update 11/2/11:
I'm seeing personhood supporters passing around this link explaining why they think doctors won't be prevented from performing procedures to save the life of a woman at the cost of her pregnancy. Decent argument, until you consider that when a person kills another person in self defense, they are still subject to a police investigation into the incident, often including arrest, incarceration, and trial. My point still stands.

Also, Yes on 26 is claiming that these videos are "proof" that birth control will not be affected by personhood. First of all, soundbites from a handful of people who allegedly answered phones at a Planned Parenthood office, the health dept., some local hospitals, and an unidentified pharmacy, hardly qualifies as a definitive, expert, scientific rebuttal of any of the actual concerns raised. (Also, the likely scenario is that the pill will technically remain available until someone makes a legal challenge against it under the new law, or a law enforcement official decides to act to remove it from pharmacies, at which point it would likely be declared illegal due to its capacity for preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, so the ads are being deceptive on that point.) Second, a rep from Personhood USA has specifically admitted that birth control pills would be affected in this interview. Finally, what does funding from Planned Parenthood prove? (Especially when Personhood Mississippi has its own links to far, far more dubious outfits...)

I don't talk about politics much. Partly due to my natural tendency to not talk very much in general, but also because it's increasingly difficult to talk politics these days without encountering massive amounts of divisive arguments fueled by deceptive soundbite-driven reporting, polarizing rhetoric, willful ignorance, and outright hate. I feel a growing need to say something here, though.

It's bothering me that the latest news reports about the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon from all the major media outlets seem to be obsessed with an idea or speculation (or perhaps deliberate spin) this is now a "left wing Tea Party" movement.  While it's true that the majority of the people and organizations getting involved (especially those jumping on the bandwagon in the past week or so) are left-leaning (poor and unemployed people and the organizations that help them tend to be that way, go figure), they're not all so liberal. And the message isn't necessarily a left-wing or right-wing one, either.

Sure, the media keeps talking about how there's no clear message or goal to the protests, but that's not really true. Adbusters, the original organizers of the gathering, began the protest with a general goal of "ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington." They're protesting the sad fact that so much legislation and policy these days is essentially bought and paid for by lobbyists and campaign contributions from large corporations. Many other peripheral demands and goals have been discussed, some often being erroneously passed off as being official by some news outlets. Here's one such (not-so-realistic) wishlist of unofficial proposals made by a single user on an internet message board that a certain media outlet picked up and derisively mocked, running it as if it were an actual press release (either in incompetent error or with deliberately deceptive intent--you decide).

Back to the concern about this being labeled as a "left-wing Tea Party," it feels like an attempt to marginalize, divide, or co-opt the movement. It calls to mind the way the Tea Party itself originally claimed to be an independent movement wanting to hold Washington accountable to the people, but it's plainly part of the Republican party now. Meanwhile, this movement--at least for the moment--doesn't belong just to one end of the traditional political spectrum. Here's one Republican perspective supporting the protests. Sure, like the voices inside the protest concerned about other related things like taxes and the war and such, he adds his own tangential ideas about business regulations and the Fed--but that core complaint about big business influencing government policy is there. Amid all the cries coming out of this protest for for various, sometimes contrasting reforms, that one basic demand remains the common goal--to end the corrupting influence of Wall Street and large corporations on a government that works less and less for the people.  As for why major media outlets run by large corporations don't seem to want to talk about that, you can draw your own conclusions there.

Overall pretty good. Better than much of series 1 & 2, though not as good as Children of Earth so far. Only two real problems stand out:

1. Did someone neglect to tell Mekhi Phifer that he was supposed to be acting in a drama, not a wacky slapstick comedy? It's a little hard to empathize with his character's pain when I'm too busy laughing at the ridiculous level of overacting.

2. Did Russell T. Davies bother to do any research into the US legal system beyond skimming through the 5th Amendment, looking up the basic definitions of "parole" and "force majeure" (but not how they're actually implemented), and having the basic knowledge that people can threaten to sue other people? Maybe they'll explain Bill Pullman's character's legal situation better in an upcoming episode, and of course I'm no legal expert, but so far it sure sounds like a load of crap that may as well have been explained away by lawyers waving magic wands. Of course this is the guy who wrote the ridiculous subplot in a Doctor Who episode where President Obama somehow came up with a magical plan to fix the global economy, but didn't bother to tell anyone what it was or even write it down or anything before announcing it to the world in a press conference (at which time the Master takes over everyone and erases that knowledge). Why should I be surprised?

The following is based upon a true story.

I'm driving home from the store, and the people on the radio are talking all about cloud computing and how it's the next big step forward, enabling us to access our data and entertainment instantaneously from any device wherever we are, without having to rely on silly antiquated concepts such as physical storage media.

I get home, finish putting away my groceries, and decide, "Hey, I want to watch a movie." So I turn on my HDTV and Playstation 3, and click on the Netflix icon.

"A new software update is available. You must install the update to continue using this program."

Ten minutes later, it's all ready for me to sign in. Oh, wait, before I can sign in to the Playstation Network (which is thankfully back online after having recently been inaccessible for over a month following a hacker attack that stole every user's personal information), it looks like I first need to download and run a new PS3 software update (no doubt because the copy protection in the previous update from two weeks ago was cracked by someone within hours of its release... again).

Another ten minutes or so, and hey, there's my Netflix instant queue! Except the movie I wanted to watch isn't available anymore because Netflix's agreement with the copyright holder to be able to stream the movie has expired. Oh well, I'll choose something else.

The movie plays for about two minutes, then pauses. "Retrieving..." Then it starts back up. For about a minute. "Retrieving..." "Retrieving..." "Retrieving..."

"We are unable to connect to Netflix. Please try again later."



YAY CLOUD COMPUTING! THE GLORIOUS FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY!

(Now, more than ever, the moral of the story is to always keep a backup copy of your data.)

So there's this bit of excitement going around the Doctor Who fandom online about various possible sightings of the Silence in series 5, and the supposed discovery of mysterious cloaked figures hiding in the museum in the series 5 finale, "The Big Bang". Except that's not what they are. At least not all of them.

Big pictures, bigger explanations, and medium-sized spoilers behind the cut:

( Read more... )

Just made a big update to my neglected page of custom DVD covers. Now has Mr. T's Be Somebody...Or Be Somebody's Fool and a whole bunch of recent RiffTrax releases.

Let me know if any links aren't working.

Regardless of anyone's intentions or whether or not it'll actually be any good, does anyone really think this Buffy the Vampire Slayer remake/reboot/shameless-Twilight-bandwagon-jumping-cashgrab thing is going to end well for anyone involved? This is so already headed down the same road as the American remake of the British cult-favorite geek-beloved show Spaced (which was similarly put into production without even consulting its similarly devoted-cult-following-having creators).

Wait, what American remake of Spaced, you ask? Exactly.

Seriously, that Spaced thing got crazy and ugly, and that show, Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Jessica Hynes don't have a single percent of the scary insane devotees that Joss Whedon and Buffy do. I can only imagine how bad this is gonna get.

It's been a few days now since I received the bizarre email announcing the relaunch of myspace.com. After googling for info about it, I can only assume that most people either didn't look at it (because, you know, who cares about Myspace anymore) or just didn't say anything about it out of pity. I'm not talking about the relaunch itself; I've seen plenty of discussion about that (most of which can be summed up with the word "meh"). I'm talking about the beautifully-designed email that was sent out to announce this auspicious occasion, as seen right here, with this completely relevant animated gif of a silhouetted man shooting lightning bolts at an alien wearing a pink space suit:



Wow. I don't know about you guys, but, gee, that image fills me with anticipation and excitement for what will surely be a quality web-browsing experience.

Also, the image was placed online with a directory name spelled "lightening"--yep, really professional-looking job here.

I finally ventured over to the site today, and can report that it's even worse than the email would lead you to expect. Just a bunch of ugly, gaudy, nearly-unnavigable garbage. (So... pretty much the same as the old site, except now all the content being thrown at your face is from douchebaggy corporate sponsors instead of from your douchebaggy friends.)

I just got back from Walmart, where I witnessed something truly horrible and disturbing. (Yes, even for Walmart.) There, prominently displayed in the DVD section, were copies of Troll 2 on two-disc Blu-ray and DVD... Out in the open... Where poor unsuspecting souls might actually see it... As if it were actually a real movie or something...

I know MGM is in a desperate financial situation right now, but putting this thing out for sale in stores without adequate warning labels (and in high definition!) surely must violate numerous consumer safety regulations.

#1:
Dear person in charge of the design of the spine art for the last two seasons of LOST on DVD, ( Read more... )