Greenwald: Puppy Killer Reynolds Also Eats Muslim Children

In Glen (GiGi) Ellison Ellensberg Ellers Greenwald's latest foam specked bit of outrage slobbered in the direction of this post at Instapundit, as usual GiGi tries to hide the facts in too many words for anyone to bother reading:

Glenn Reynolds points to this article from The Independent which reports that a "leading Islamic doctor is urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella because they contain substances making them unlawful for Muslims to take." Reynolds' response:

JUST THINK OF IT AS EVOLUTION IN ACTION

I don't think there is any evolutionary theory that celebrates or finds purpose in the death of children as a result of stupid actions taken by their parents. This just seems instead like a good excuse for pointing out how primitive Muslims are and how they deserve death (what else does it mean to say "Just think of it as evolution in action"?).

Actually, Reynold's noting the item is far from celebrating it, but given what evolution is, it's laughable that Greenwald lacks enough insight to understand that any actions, stupid or otherwise, by parents are by definition built in to any working theory of evolution. But GiGi saves his real obfuscation for an attack on the Right:

But beyond that, one does not need to go searching for isolated British Muslim doctors in order to find examples of the lives of children being endangered due to the religious beliefs of adults. Merck, among other pharmaceutical companies, developed a highly effective vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV) -- by far the leading cause of cervical cancer in women -- but an entire American political movement called "social conservatism" has been desperately trying to prevent its widespread approval -- or at least persuade parents not to have their daughters vaccinated -- because HPV is a sexually transmitted disease and they therefore believe that a vaccine will be seen as an endorsement of premartal sex

But what are the groups really fighting?

Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory

That's right, it's called choice. Funny how the Left hates the word in any context other than abortion. Taking a political position against the government mandating that your children are subject to a mandatory vaccination linked to preventing a sexually transmitted disease for which you don't believe they are at risk is a far cry from advocating a boycott of vaccinations meant to fight common diseases to which children are exposed every day.

But then in Ellison's Greenwald's world everyone is doing the Bosanova and routinely getting boinked on some beach in Brazil. So, it's little wonder he more than many people would be worried about sexually transmitted disease.

Comments

[scarshapedstar]

Would you oppose an AIDS vaccine as well? At what point does a scourge become terrible enough that ending it becomes less "defying God's plan" and more "a moral obligation"?

[Dan Riehl]

Would you oppose an AIDS vaccine as well?

I'd oppose any government mandate unless it can be shown to be a widespread concern. That doesn't mean I would oppose anyone getting vaccinated if they desired.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Greenwald has been completely discredited by his sockpuppetry. He deserves no attention

[red]

Would you oppose an AIDS vaccine as well?

Wasn't it the gay movement that opposed standard public health measures such as tracing contacts back in the 70's? That was too coercive. Some authoritarian people thought that treating AIDS just like tuberculosis and other communicable diseases would be compassionate.. but oh well.

I agree with Dan. Mandated governmental approaches, like polio, DPT, innoculations are suitable when do to virulent communicability all share the same risk of infection. Otherwise, let each make their own decisions. That's choice.

[Ryan Waxx]

Seems to me that GG is pushing morality into a situation where it doesn't belong. Darwin's theories do not and never have "celebrate or find purpose" in anything, at all, ever. So any celebration GG detects exists purely in his own mind.

It comes down to one of the basic differences between the two blogers: Insty is often an observer or a linker - he is normally very, very light on telling people what to think about something. GG is the opposite, and in addition, he simply can't imagine someone making an observation without it being a overwright moralizing statement. Hence Insty's observation that "stupidity kills" translates to "Go Stupidity! More Dead Muslims! Hooray!" in the mind of Greenwald.

I disagree with Infidel, above. There are so many more reasons to ignore Greenwald over and above his sockpuppetry...

[jaed]

(Am I the only person in this entire discussion other than Glenn Reynolds who's read "Oath of Fealty"?)

[Ellison Wilson]

Jealous, much? Glenn Greenwald is a top-shelf blogger whose work has been read aloud by John Kerry, who even got most of the big words right. His blog entries are posted on George Soros's refrigerator, and he authored a New York Times bestselling book that sold by the truckload. Plus, he never cries when he gets his shots. It's funny watching you self-important right-wing bloggers trying to build yourselves up by making fun of me, I mean him, like this.

[Martin L. Shoemaker]

jaed: no. And it's very appropriate. When people are determined to do stupid things that hurt themselves, sometimes you have to realize that you can't stop them.

[Bill Adkins]

"Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory

That's right, it's called choice."

Choice - that kind of 'choice' is the same 'choice' made by a suicide bomber. No different - except that a parent would prefer to make it FOR their kid. You hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[Phoenix]

"whose work has been read aloud by John Kerry, who even got most of the big words right."

ha ha... What a compliment to Greenwald and what an insult to Kerry. How does this reconcile into *anything* other than schizophrenia of thought?

The links lead me to two peace rallies, - one in DC with a great write-up, and the other by Althouse, who filmed the most embarrassing display of marching I've ever seen. The link to Mr. Greenwald's site came up with a background color of turkey-turd-tan and green writing, so I couldn't read it.

Why does Greenwald care about a cervix anyway?

As for any religious beliefs putting children at risk for disease..... I'll just keep my mouth closed.

[Hermagoras]

"any actions, stupid or otherwise, by parents are by definition built in to any working theory of evolution." Actually, no. Showing how little you understand evolution.

[Dan Riehl]

the same 'choice' made by a suicide bomber

LMAO Unhinged. One can't even make the leap from one to another you allege unless your idea of raising a young woman is to train her to be a slut young and share herself as frequently and anonymously as possible.

Oh, I forgot, you're a Lib. Maybe that is your idea of raising kids.

[Exalt]

eh, instaputz obviously considers muslims to be inferior. some would call this despicable racism. others would trot to their fridge in their pajamas, grab a cold slice of pizza, and then sit down for some hard core blogging. i see which camp you are in mr. riehl.

[solidstate]

Phoenix is taking as sincere Ellison Wilson's delicious sarcasm.

Exalt is, er, a bit excitable.

Thanks, Dan, for elaborating a bit on Glenn Reynolds' as-ever calm and rational comments. It appears that some folks need the service.

[Crust]

Dan Riehl criticizing someone else for "foam speckled ... outrage" (while linking to Ace of all people to boot). My my, the irony.

[Phoenix]

"Phoenix is taking as sincere Ellison Wilson's delicious sarcasm."

Exactly, Mr. Solidstate. ha ha ha.... Too rich... :)

[Crust]

Re alleged sockpuppetry by GG on other blogs: Greenwald has denied it: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/response-to-right-wing-personal.html. Stephen Taylor (a right wing blogger) has given an alternate, more probable explanation: http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=10376.

[Crust]

Links in above comment should have been:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/response-to-right-wing-personal.html
http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=10376

Also Dan's link to Instapundit is the wrong one, should be (with update linking to this post BTW):

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/01/post_2068.php

[prozacula]

"But then in Greenwald's world everyone is doing the Bosanova and routinely getting boinked on some beach in Brazil. So, it's little wonder he more than many people would be worried about sexually transmitted disease."

homophobic? no dan!

your thinly veiled hatred for homosexuals really shines through in that last sentence dan.

Not that it surprises me at all. Par for the (moronic) course.

Bigot.

[Phoenix]

homophobic? no dan!

your thinly veiled hatred for homosexuals really shines through in that last sentence dan.

Not that it surprises me at all. Par for the (moronic) course.

Bigot.

Posted by: prozacula |

Um. Where do you see one hint of homophobia, Prozacula? Could it be all in your mind? I mean.. point out exactly the words that connote bigotry or homophobia?

[Bill Adkins]

"unless your idea of raising a young woman is to train her to be a slut young and share herself as frequently and anonymously as possible."

So, for you it's "Better dead than a slut," hmmm?

Oh, I forgot, you're a con. Maybe that is your idea of appropriate corporal punishment - aren't you the one who published that post about the honor killing by the father who thought his daughter was no longer a virgin?

[Bill Adkins]

Yep, Dan -that was you. Not much separates you from this guy. http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/01/honor_killing_i.html