How did I know the ACLU would be involved…
Posted on May 30, 2006
Convicted Killer Seeks Sex-Change Surgery
“We ask that gender identity disorder be treated like any other medical condition,” said Kosilek’s attorney, Frances Cohen.
…and this conscienceless, brutal murderer’s counsel is a volunteer attorney for…drum roll…
THE ACLU of MASSACHUSETTS!
Shocking! See pg. 13. I just KNEW my simple inquiry would bear the fruit I sought! The more twisted it gets, the more likely it becomes that the ACLU is involved somehow. Call it Glib’s Law.
So let me get this straight, the ACLU’s position is to prevent even a penny of taxpayer money from going to prison ministries (which BTW, have been shown to be the top recidivism prevention tool…what happens to the ACLU’s plea for rehab and not retribution if GASP! God may be a part of that rehab…”compassion” for the “victims” of the “system”…POOF!). But hold on folks, their attorneys think it’s AOK that the same hard-working Americans have their day’s pay raided to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars to surgically mutilate a mentally ill killer?
Any ACLU-o-philes care to defend this latest freakazoidally frivolous piece of litigation?
Others: Wizbang
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “How did I know the ACLU would be involved…”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Don’t complain about this blatant hypocrisy Glib. Look at where prison sex change operations have gotten California. Let Mass. do the same. Maybe the people will figure out dumbass garbage like this is draining their economy and they’ll tell the ACLU to keep its mouth shut.
Beaming Visionary,
You need to read all the information provided. One key piece of data is that 18381 did not answer the questionnaire. The second of course is that it is a questionnaire and you are assuming that the convicted criminal who answered are telling the truth. I assume honest criminals exist but I wonder how common they are?
The question that was not answered is why they were asked what their religion is? I looked at why the Indiana Department of Corrections asks inmate on intake what their religion is. The reason is to determine what special arrangements must be made for the inmate. Atheist seldom need special arrangements because of their religion so why would they bother answering. It is funny because inmates are allowed more religious freedom that students in school.
Just what I’ve come to expect from Preening Pigeonfairy…avoid the issue, avoid the issue, avoid the issue. I suppose he supports the ACLU attorney’s argument here juuuuust in case next time he’s in the clink he’d like to go from pre-op to Tiffany.
So what is it BV? Do you think taxpayer coin should pay to slake this butcher’s new madness?
Nice Ginsu job on his BV’s silly attempt at redirecting the argument KB.
Further reading:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110003652
BV…
For a bright guy, you certainly have trouble grasping elementary concepts. The one we are discussing here is the ACLU’s hypocrisy in what they think is worthy of taxpayer wallet rape.
Among the most glaring of your shortcomings is a pathologically reflexive theophobia mixed with an unhealthy heaping helping of historical and legal illiteracy. That conflagratory potion renders you rockin’-Rainman on your singular fixation.
“you can expect the ACLU to go to bat for anyone who apears to be discriminated against”
Oh reeeeally? How about when the government makes available a pool of funding for which any group that performs the stated services for which said funds have been allocated? Should religiously-oriented groups have equal access in the competition for those funds or should those groups be specifically excluded? What do you say…what does the ACLU think?
BTW, I provided “substantiation” for my claim. Check the Opinion Journal link. Brain, BV, whoever, I don’t make claims I can’t back up, so that line of attack is moot when you deal with me. Not only that, KB sushi-cheffed your lame non-contextual reference. I said “Good Day!”
Glib: You better watch, or you’ll find yourself as BV’s next target for verbal assaults on his little “I hate Stop The ACLU” site. If you keep outsmarting him you end up giving his number of commenters a boost from two to like…three. (Having said that, I probably just make his list)
“apostle: Don’t worry, I would never bother with you at any length.”
Except you already have. So we can add “liar” to your long list of character traits.
“the word “theophobia” has no real-life application.”
You can’t win here BV. That word is a desciption not a factual claim.
“And the OJ link doesn’t provide evidence that prison ministries do any demonstrable good — any keen statistician would want to know if and how Phase II and II effects were separated from those of Phase I.”
YOU (!) are appealing to a keen statistician??? You credibility here approaches nil. One need only to harken back to an earlier post on this very thread to know that your reliance on stats only extend to their apparent usefulness to your agenda. The study does refer to prisoners that COMPLETE the program. It’s very clear. No need to muddy any water here.
“freethinkers”
It’s just hilarious when the most narrow bigots refer to themselves in this way. You really think that your absolutist worldview qualifies as “free thinking?” Hardy-har-har.
“Lower than the others, but considering how spiritual these people allegedly are, isn’t that figure high?”
Do I even need to point out the knee-slapping stupidity of this statement?
I have to make this accusation again BV. You MUST be a right-thinking jokester who’s having a little fun…the character is just SO rich.
“Of course, *all* of the foregoing is trivial given the fact that the ACLU is _not_even_involved_ in the Massachusetts case, Glib’s angry headline notwithstanding.”
Once, again, if you actually read what I wrote you’d understand…
Frances Cohen IS AN ACLU VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY. I state clearly that the ACLU was involved “somehow” and never said that the case was being litigated directly by the ACLU.
Not only that, you defended what you know the ACLU take is on this by stating comically:
“you can expect the ACLU to go to bat for anyone who apears [sic] to be discriminated against under the rules now in place.”
A statement like what follows forces me to rethink my description of you as a “bright guy”:
“I see. Glib Fortuna introduced the term into the discussion, but I’m not allowed to comment on it because I’m supposed to assume that it’s…what, a *non*-factual claim?”
I corrected how you characterized a term when you attempted to make an invalid point, This is not to say you are “not allowed to comment,” just that things need to be properly identified if we are to have a discussion. When you write something like this, you sound like a red-faced, foot-stomping grade-schooler.
“Do I even need to point out the knee-slapping stupidity of this statement?”
Yes, feel free. I’m remarking that if 1 in 6 indoctrinated prisoners goes on to get caught committing crimes after being released, the efficacy of indoctrination is clearly in doubt.”
I know you know why what you say is ridiculous, but I’ll humor you anyway. If prisoners who complete this program, the program that they actually went through, not irrelevant hypotheticals you like to bring up (you love the “great in practice, let’s see if it works in theory” relativist argument because the real world just NEVER works the way you’d like) have a greatly reduced recidivism. I guess the only way you’d buy in is if EVERY person who’d gone through the program stayed clean upon release. This is a ridiculous standard and you know it. Come to think of it, no, there is nothing short of a Damascus experience that would convince you that religous faith may benefit individuals and society, despite how you continue to suckle of the fruits of Judeo-Christian law and culture here in America.
“owing to its multi-phasic [sic] approach, did not permit an independent determination of the effectiveness of religious instruction.”
This is a truly dense comment in that it has already been made clear to you that completion of this ENTIRE program is the great indicator of success on the outside. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
BTW — excuse the errors in my last post. I was rushing to catch a cross-country flight and failed to edit.
BV–
Caught you, you smooth obfuscator! You almost got away with it, but not quite.
Address this or never accuse anyone else of dodging an issue again:
How about when the government makes available a pool of funding for which any group that performs the stated services for which said funds have been allocated? Should religiously-oriented groups have equal access in the competition for those funds or should those groups be specifically excluded? What do you say…what does the ACLU think?
One more thing that makes you and your fellow theobigots at the link you provided look like absolute dolts:
http://aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/23913prs20060124.html
1) Linking to the opinion of an obscure blogger that confirms your opinion is hardly digging up the “facts.”
2) His “argument” is SO weak: What he implies is that though an ACLU volunteer attorney is taking the case, that the ACLU would NEVER support litigation of this type and my actual research (being the first I know of to discover that this attorney is an ACLU volunteer attorney) is merely an illegitimate exercise in dot connecting.
This is where your source of “facts” makes a true fool of himself:
“Does that mean the ACLU supports every legal position taken by every attorney in every case they’ve ever done or will do in the future once that attorney has volunteered for them in a case? Of course not.”
I was not talking about “every position,” I was talking about a particular position…and my link proves that I have once again prevailed. The ACLU DOES in fact, in spirit and in practice support this PRECISE theft-by-witholding from working men and women.
Not only that, I’ll bet the farm that before this case is over that the ACLU of MA does get involved directly if it hasn’t already been funding this case for their volunteer attorney. I will find out soon enough. More to come.
“phasic”
Yes, it is a word, but you misused it as you did the word “facile” recently. You should just have said “phase.” My insertion of that indicator where appropriate was actually a GOTHCA joke since you felt the need to point out my errors when it added nothing to our debate. I think we should end these irrelevant jabs anyway based on recent posts by BOTH of us. Agreed?
“obscure blogger”
I’ll concede this one…the only reason I wrote it was to stoke your ire (success!).
Who’s shouting BV? I’m having FUN!!!
“Why is it so hard for YOU to grasp that completion of PHASE I ONLY would be the only useful metric of the efficiacy of religious teaching? Are you simply making a concession now?”
Your argument about judging success rates based on people that didn’t complete the program is perplexing. By that logic, we’d have to say that the 1981 Yankees actually WON the World Series because they took the first two games in that “phasic” series. Or how about judging the effectiveness of AA by looking at the drunk in gutter who went to one meeting. Or let’s look at Moveon.org’s success in terms of how many email addresses they collect, not candidates they’ve endorsed who’ve actually won an election. How do you come to the conclusion that “the only useful metric” is evaluating a group that does not go through the entire program? It makes exactly (hold on, let me calculate) ZERO sense.
“But religious groups should just as clearly not be denied funding simply because they are religious.”
Good, we completely agree. The ACLU does not. The Silver Ring Thing, which is the program I’m certain you are citing, was attacked specifically because of ONE portion of the program. Kids that VOLUNTARILY participate are given a CHOICE between a secular course of instruction and a religious one. The ACLU sued because of the existence of the religious route available. Not much nuance to work there Chuck. And this goes along with other suits that the ACLU files that target the Christian elements of a display (Cranston, RI Christmas display), government seal (LA, Tijeras, NM) group of monuments (Van Orden, Mercer County — in which the judge rightly called the phrase/argument “separation of church and state” “tiresome” and “extraconstitutional” — BINGO gringro!), etc. and none others.
“The governmetn should not be handing out money to abstinece-only “education” programs in which kids are constantly and egregiously lied to, as has happened a number of times.”
Prove this. I won’t accept a link to a blogger that simply repeats what you have said. Facts, baby, facts (and no, your opinion does not qualify as a fact, nor does that of scienceblogs.)
I suppose you think that this is a “lie”:
“The ONLY 100% guarantee that someone will not get pregnant or contract a sexually-transmitted disease is by not having sex.”
Oh BV…
I read the Slate article and the author has made the same tiresome argument you’ve been trying to make. The FACTS are that those who COMPLETE the program are far more successful than those who don’t or who never participated. That does not diminish my argument, it enhances it. I’ll just have to junk you in the “can’t quite reach” category on this one since you are so rabidly opposed to faith-based ANYTHING.
“I won’t accept a link to a blogger that simply repeats what you have said. Facts, baby, facts (and no, your opinion does not qualify as a fact, nor does that of scienceblogs.”
That you even impose such a restriction is a tacit admission that you know the truth is not on your side.”
This is one of your more ridiculous non-sequiturs. I ask for facts instead of a rant and you consider that a restriction? Intellectually honest people would call that a given. I was forced to mention this “no duh” to you because of your penchant for dealing in unsupported pap from people you already know agree with you and calling it “dig[ging] up the facts.”
I have to FINALLY applaud you for at least a moderate challenge on the abstinence education issue. First allow me to disabuse you of this comment:
“If you support this kind of abstinence-based “education,” you support lying, plain and simple.”
Anything the government allocates taxpayer money to should be audited and evaluated. If programs are found to be passing bogus information, funding should be withheld or cut off depending on the offense. That said, the Department of Education has been lying to the people for 30 years and destroying generations of our children. Therefore, this bureaucratic vampire should have all funding cut immediately. Has your delusion dissipated?
The WaPo article you link to is a cut-and-paste job on a report spearheaded by the ultra-radical, anti-abstinence education, abortion-on-demand zealot Leftist Henry Waxman. The report relies heavily on “studies” and recommendations by Douglas Kirby who has a history of evaluating his own work and PRESTO recommending it (as happened again in the Waxman report) while savaging other programs that actually teach abstinence as the only surefire way to avoid pregnancy and STDs (http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/abstinence/ppi/a0028363.cfm). Other “resources” referred to in the report are NARAL and SEICUS (footnote 18) (!!!), Kaiser (another far-Left, agenda-intense organization) and “studies” by Bearman and Bruckner. The misdirection and flat-out falsehoods contained in that report are legion, so I would be very skeptical about ANY conclusions contained within despite the dutiful article by Ceci (who is a doll to work with BTW).
I probably need to restate, since you have trouble at times wading through several ideas proximately presented: If taxpayer funding goes anywhere, it should not be to people and organizations that lie. Another example…not a cent of my money should ever go to Planned Parenthood, one of the most diabolical and shameless lying-at-every-level groups in the history of this nation.
If you are truly interested in truth, read this Heritage Foundation analysis of the B&B study:
http://www.family.org/cforum/pdfs/fosi/abstinence/Heritage_STD-paper%20(2).pdf
The Waxman study goes down:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm615.cfm
If that’s not enough…what do parents want? Oh yeah, parents are not only parents, but make up one of the largest taxpayer pools as well:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1722.cfm
I think this a thorough enough flogging for you BV. Though your last post was likely the best I’ve seen from you, I’m getting bored going at it on an old thread. Catch me on my next post if you want your lunch money stolen again.