Secrets of the City

Say, no offense Max, but if you’re going to post links to some right-wing blogs, why don’t you include some that us right-wingers, you know, actually read? Like this, this or this?

Thanks anyway.

Because their most recent posts are not about local subjects, Maz.

Hey Max, why more posts from the right than the left? What about FAIR&BALANCED?

Lulz ):

I guess people on the right just bitch more.

Hey Max, why more posts from the right than the left? What about FAIR&BALANCED?

We have blogs. You have the Strib.

More sloppy acronyming from Michael Brodkorb, who doesn’t know a PDF from a PFD. And how’s about some quotes around the MDE link? Are you quoting Brodkorb’s subjective headline or editorializing?

Hey, Max actually does something half-decent. I always give credit where credit is Jew, so nice work Max-o!

And the discourse sure benefits from linking to MDE. Check this batshit-crazy comment, typical for Brodkorb’s site: “Hes a liberal. Of course hes a liar. You cant trust Democrats any farther than you can throw them. That shouldnt stop us from trying to throw them, however.”

Credit is Jew?

Credit is Jew?

Duh.

I don’t know why you guys are criticizing MDE for this post. Max’s link pointed out a pretty clear episode where the Minn Mon post was wrong. It claimed a congresswoman didn’t file a finance report– when she did. It was an interesting post.

People get so obsessed over the messengers, they don’t pay attention to the message. And if no one linked to sites with idiotic comments on them, well, no one would link.

Actually, ripper, the acronym he used was correct. PFD = Personal Financial Disclosure Report. The report is just in PDF format.

Not that I’m in defense. I read those comments. Scary.

“Hes a liberal. Of course hes a liar. You cant trust Democrats any farther than you can throw them. That shouldnt stop us from trying to throw them, however.”

I thought that was kinda funny. I also thought Max was Jewish and that I can effectively make jokes.

Today is just not my day for thinking.

Coleman’s approval rating among Minnesota voters has slipped below 50 percent and some analysts say that’s politically risky for him.

His drop in approval is from us freepers who disapprove of his positions on Gonzales, Iraq, and other reversions to his old democrat roots. But come election day, if he’s still the GOP candidate, we’ll hold our nose and pull the Coleman lever.

So, the story of his poll numbers and the actual numbers are misleading. The more interesting story would be if he gets a serious challenge in the primary from a true conservative.

That fertility clinic thing is a disgrace…

The whole culture of fertility clinics makes me a bit sick. It really seems to make infants into commodities. People drop tens of thousands of dollars to create embryos out of their own genetic stock, when there are plenty of children (not always cute babies with no health or mental issues) who could be adopted. Excess embryos are usually created and kept on cold storage (which leads to fights about stem cell research) and many times too many are implanted. It doesn’t seem like there’s much regulation, especially in terms of informing parents about the risks of multiple births (though I would think that parents should realize that implanting litters of embryos is not exactly how nature works).

Would I make them illegal? No. While I’m sorry for couples dealing with fertility issues, I wish some of them would be more honest about what they’re doing and what alternatives exist.

Hmm… I think I said something about not wanting bans put into place yesterday, but…
regarding the fertility clinic: If the clinic knows the risks of multiple births, why would they implant more than two or three eggs in a woman whose beliefs do not allow “termination selection” or whatever they call.
Seems irresponsible on the clinic’s part to even give the couple the option knowing the risk increases with each fertilized egg.

They implant several eggs to up the chances of some of them latching onto the uterus. The problem with IVF has always been failiure of the embryo to implant into the uterus. Not to mention some fertility clinics use this as a shady way to increase their numbers of success stories.

That being said, with the gains being made in tech, this shouldn’t be happening anymore. The IVF procedure is a lot more successful now than it was even 10 years ago, and according to the Star Tribune article, implanting that many embryos shouldn’t be neccessary, even if the parents want it.

I wish some of them would be more honest about what they’re doing

Such as…?

To throw an accusation like that against couples who simply want a child of their own requires a few examples as to what their alterior motives could be.

If any attitude suggest treating children as a commodity, I think it would be yours when you imply that there is this supply chain of children and a child adopted is no different than a child conceived from the “stock” of two parents. To some parents, that can make all the difference in the world.

So let’s say what wants to be said: Some people think this couple made a stupid choice because the couple put its religious convictions above science? Not my opinion, but let’s just admit that’s what the story is about instead of doing the moral hokey-pokey to make ourselves feel better.

Where credit is Jew actually cracked me up a little. But, then, I have a habit of singing songs and putting the word Jew is instead of any word that rhymes with it.

Max and I – one a Jewish mind-meld.

Freaky shit.

I just want to point out that with the sextuplets, they were not implanted – I read on their site that they took the drugs and ended up with 10 good eggs at once, which is how she became impregnated with 6 fetuses.

Reading a bit about the drug they used, it looks like it’s a drug for IVF that creates many eggs for harvest to prep for implantation, but they just used it as a ART instead like you would Clomid, which usually only release 2-3 mature eggs at a time at most.

“The whole culture of fertility clinics makes me a bit sick.“

Never spent years yearning with all your heart for kids but having no success, have you? Your comment strikes me as a being a bit judgmental without foundation, which is the worst kind of judgmental.

I’ve known several people who’ve gone through this process. To say that they were despondent and depressed after trying to conceive for years, or even decades, would be understatement. The people I’ve known in this situation were people who really looked at parenthood as a sort of natural and obvious part of their picture of a fulfilled and happy life, and the lack was devastating to them.

And, adoption? Not NEARLY as easy and available as you might think, even for the mythical “available older kids.” Minnesota in particular has some barriers to adoption that are ideologically based, and tough to satisfy.

And, when it costs so much to try this method, it’s very hard to say “take out all but one or two” when you get multiple successes, knowing that choosing the wrong ones to cull may leave you with the weakest being left, and so having none survive to birth.

“That being said, with the gains being made in tech, this shouldn’t be happening anymore. The IVF procedure is a lot more successful now than it was even 10 years ago, and according to the Star Tribune article, implanting that many embryos shouldn’t be neccessary, even if the parents want it.“

I think your biggest hint should be “according to the Star Tribune . . .”. Clearly, some doctor arrived at a professional judgment that multiple embryos in the implant attempt was called for. The Strib probably wasn’t there at the time, nor did it attend med school. When you’re talking about a paper that routinely gets major non-technical facts wrong, relying upon its technical expertise and judgment just seems . . . less than smart.

Anyone else totally unsurprised that Michele Bachmann has money invested in WWE Entertainment Inc?

Actually to rew’s point, they were not implanted eggs.

And from reading the morrison’s site (morrison6.com), the odds of what happened to them are slim to none. So, I’ll revise my early comment and say it doesn’t sound, in this case, that the clinic could have done much, if anything to ensure fewer eggs being fertliized.

From the Morrison’s site: Eventually we came under the care of a clinic that had succeeded in helping some of our close friends conceive. After two failed cycles using Clomid, we tried the drug Follistim. Briannas first cycle with the new treatment looked great. She had two mature eggs that were ready to be released, and two immature eggs that probably werent going to be viable. There was a 25% chance of us having twins, a 3 % chance of us having triplets and anything else was laughable.

There is a place for fertility clinics in our world. I just hope that as technology improves, we are not necessarily given the options.

I think it has to be such a sad and painful time for the Morrison’s… let’s not heap judgement on them as well.

Why is replicating oneself so important to some people?

Whose needs does it ultimately serve? The parents or the rest of the world?

Does anyone think of these kinds of questions?

Is reproduction really such an end-all/be-all, ultimate path to happiness and fulfillment? Are your family’s genes THAT special?

Aren’t there other ways to be happy? Last I checked, there was. If you’re that “depressed and despondent” because you can’t create your own little Bratley McShitfactory, either buy one on the black market, legitimately adopt, or shut up and find a higher purpose in life that preserves and contributes to the world’s resources and needs of others. Maybe not being able to conceive or adopt is a SIGN that you weren’t MEANT TO.

And human beings were never meant to birth litters. Gross.

Either way, it’s a tragedy that a couple has lost 3 babies, but it sounds like they were educated in the risks.

My question is, is it more heartbreaking to selectively reduce the amount of fetus’s (feti?) or to carry them for 20 weeks, only to have them pass away later? I can’t speak for this couple, but my opinion would be to reduce in order to increase the chances of having a healthy baby.

has = have…jeez

actually couple is singular.

God, I’m retarded today…thanks wayne

To say that they were despondent and depressed after trying to conceive for years, or even decades, would be understatement.

That’s a shame, but I lack much sympathy. They need to get over the “making a copy of myself is the point of my existance” mindset, and figure out some actually useful things to do with their lives, or at the very least adopt children that already exist, rather than waste thousands of dollars worth of resources to create something that there is already a surplus of.

They need to get over the “making a copy of myself is the point of my existance” mindset, and figure out some actually useful things to do with their lives

Not to get into a deep discussion, but what exactly do you consider “useful things?” That is a pretty general statement.

IMO, continuing the human existence by producing offspring is useful. But I suppose you could argue it is more cruel than useful.

and figure out some actually useful things to do with their lives, or at the very least adopt children that already exist, rather than waste thousands of dollars worth of resources to create something that there is already a surplus of.

Jeffk, since insurance doesn’t cover fertility, the couple pays out-of-pocket so no resources are being wasted.
And, as an adopted child, I can say I am thankful my parents adopted me, but adoption can be just as laborious, heartbreaking and money-draining as fertilization.

They need to get over the “making a copy of myself is the point of my existance” mindset,

Jeffy, it’s called primordial instinct. Yours will kick in one of these days I’m sure.

Such as…?

To throw an accusation like that against couples who simply want a child of their own requires a few examples as to what their alterior motives could be.

Quite simply, it’s not that they want to start a family, or raise a child, or help shape the next generation, or whatever altrustic spin you want to put on having a kid, it’s that they want to do those things only with their genetic material.

And there are couples out there that are so blinded by the idea of getting a baby that shares their DNA that they overlook the risks and hazards (mentally, physically, and financially to both the parents and the children) of some of these procedures.

My question is, is it more heartbreaking to selectively reduce the amount of fetus’s (feti?) or to carry them for 20 weeks, only to have them pass away later? I can’t speak for this couple, but my opinion would be to reduce in order to increase the chances of having a healthy baby.

That they had to even face that decision is the most heart-wrenching part of the whole story. These kids are barely in their mid-20s having to go through this.

“They need to get over the “making a copy of myself is the point of my existance” mindset, and figure out some actually useful things to do with their lives . . .“

They “need” to? Jeff, what you’re saying here is that these people’s moral values are wrong and yours are right.

And that’s about as closed-minded and judgmental as anything coherent I’ve read here today.

That they had to even face that decision is the most heart-wrenching part of the whole story. These kids are barely in their mid-20s having to go through this.

ok, I’m trying to keep the snark and judgement to a minimum, but I really don’t understand why they felt the need to go to fertility drugs so early in their lives. I think that some people think concieving a baby is the easiest thing in the world, and that if it doesn’t happen with the first 2 years of marriage, then they’re infertile. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but I have family members that had to try for at least 3 years before they successfully conceived (without drugs). I think a lot of couples should be educated on how difficult it really is to get and stay pregnant, despite the “pregnant on my wedding night” stories.

continuing the human existence by producing offspring is useful.
Almost anything other than producing more resource-hungry humans is useful enough.

since insurance doesn’t cover fertility, the couple pays out-of-pocket so no resources are being wasted.
So if I go to the gas station and buy gas, I’m not using resources?

Jeffy, it’s called primordial instinct. Yours will kick in one of these days I’m sure.
I’ll buy you a beer if it happens. But I’m doubting it.

They “need” to? Jeff, what you’re saying here is that these people’s moral values are wrong and yours are right.

And that’s about as closed-minded and judgmental as anything coherent I’ve read here today.
Yes. Let’s never judge anybody, because that would be, well, judgemental. There’s a plan for interesting conversation.

there are couples out there that are so blinded by the idea of getting a baby that shares their DNA

Some would say that this is the true meaning of life … to procreate … to contribute to the gene pool … to advance the tribal DNA.

At least, that’s what a man will tell you is his purpose in life. heh.

since insurance doesn’t cover fertility, the couple pays out-of-pocket so no resources are being wasted. So if I go to the gas station and buy gas, I’m not using resources?

hmm… the gas station rebuttle might not have been the best, but hey, not going to get bogged down.

Since you mention adoption: “or at the very least adopt children that already exist, rather than waste thousands of dollars worth of resources to create something that there is already a surplus of.” Just because there are children who already exist doesn’t mean resources aren’t being used or wasted – not by the children, but the agencies. And, as I previously stated, adoptions are not always the “easy” answer so many think it is.

Nice parrying.

“Almost anything other than producing more resource-hungry humans is useful enough.“

There’s a very basic philosophical divide here that’s forming the foundation for quite a few disagreements, and talking around it at the smaller details really goes nowhere.

I’m anthrocentric. I value humans higher than any other life form. Were I able to devise an AIDs vaccine that would, as a side effect, cause the extinction of several sub-species of puffin, I’d do it in a heartbeat. I view the problem of resource consumption as eventually causing the extinction of humans, not that the resource itself would be gone – the resource has value to the extent it can help to support and improve human life. If we do ever consume all resources, humanity will die – but the earth will be just as fine as it ever was. If humans disappear, it would take about 100 years – a blink in the earth’s time – for all signs of us to disappear.

As a narrower expression of that anthrocentricity, I’m also culturocentric (or nation-centric, depending on how you define each.) I don’t feel the need to forego consumption simply because some populations in resource-devoid areas have chosen to expand far beyond what their resources will support.

We’ve been hearing that the earth is too crowded for hundreds of years. Dire predictions of population-fueled doom, starvation, and plague have issued since forever, and yet here we are, still growing, still with most of our land empty and our resources bountiful. Fortunately, humans are intelligent, and as our numbers grow, our intelligence allows us to devise ways to deal with those numbers.

There are always going to be parts of humanity unable to provide sustenance for themselves, mostly because of where they are, and I have no problem helping them to survive. But I feel no need to put my life on hold, and avoid creating more “resource-devouring humans” until such time as every existing human has an IPod.

And, when you do finally decide to procreate, you won’t be able to afford a beer for a year or two, so be nicer to Maz, as he’s the only one offering you that beer so far.

Really, disagree with me, fine, but the whole “it’s close minded to call into question other people’s moral beliefs” makes about as much damn sense as, “it’s part of my moral beliefs to have my dog shit on your lawn”. If we can’t hold each other accountable (the extent to which is certainly debateable, but more than none at all), then how are we supposed to run a country?

“it’s part of my moral beliefs to have my dog shit on your lawn”.

You might not think this makes sense, but talk to my crackhead neighbors as they think it’s their God given right to have their dog shit in my yard.

… but, in a way I’m thankful because without them we couldn’t play sholf (the act of using a golf club to hit my neighbors dog shit back into their yard).

bobby should move in next to them and see how long it takes for him to judge their dog-shitting-on-lawn moral beliefs.

the gas station rebuttle might not have been the best, but hey, not going to get bogged down.

I thought it worked. Point being, just because you pay for something doesn’t mean you’re not using resources.

maybe it’s just me, but every time I’ve had medical insurance I’ve checked, and they usually kick in something to pay for fertility treatments.

Now, ask me if any of them covered birth control….

“Really, disagree with me, fine, but the whole “it’s close minded to call into question other people’s moral beliefs” makes about as much damn sense as, “it’s part of my moral beliefs to have my dog shit on your lawn”.“

I question other people’s moral beliefs constantly. I wasn’t implying that you couldn’t do that.

What I questioned was simply your flat statement that someone “needed” to do something, without any attempt to explain why your moral beliefs are “better”, or more efficient, or more conducive to human life, or . . . anything. To the extent that my words implied that an exercise of judgment (which is what “judgmental” means, after all) is wrong, I wrote it badly. To the extent that my words criticized an unsupported assertion of moral right, without listing the underlying values behind that assertion and with the tone that there could be no other rational or valid values, I was speaking correctly.

They cover dick pills, too, REW. Ah, such is the insanity of our health care system…

“They cover dick pills, too, REW.“

That would explain where all the dicks are coming from. They should stop paying for them.

Even if you put the needs of humans first (and I do to a large extent), it doesn’t make knocking out a kid about the worst thing you can do for the rest of the world.

We all lose some ethical ground in the process of living our lives; I recognize that. I do physics research instead of feed hungry babies in Ethiopia, so I realize I’m guilty too. But it seems obvious the the *worst* thing you can do is produce children, most particularily more than 2. That’s basically doubling your consumption of every imaginable resource, which seems relatively criminal given the suffering that goes on in the world. My compromise is I usually don’t give anyone grief unless they have more than 2.

But Jeff, what if that kid you knocks out is the one to cure cancer? Or AIDS? Or hunger?

I heard that Social Services frowns on knocking out kids…

But… mama said knock you out. I’m gonna knock you out.

And Jason, that kid could also be the next Hitler.

Good point, teucer. I suppose I am a horrible, horrible person for having a son. So selfish. I hate myself.

The sprig from the branch of DeRusha seemed a likeable enough young man, and admirably brand aware. I am certain he will not be the next Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

Besides, he doesn’t have a toothbrush moustache, doy.

I just couldn’t resist an easy counter argument because, without the cheap shots, I wouldn’t have any shots at all. Don’t take that away from me.

There are days I don’t share your certainty about my son’s lack of Nazi, Fascist or Communist tendencies.

And a ban on cheap shots would also pretty much eliminate my brand of comedy.

But you are certain that Seth is part of the left-wing liberal media conspiracy?

It’s clear. Worse than being a tree-hugger, he’s a fence-hugger at a public park.