Been a while since we had a simple links post …
- Tomorrow is “Take Yourself to Work Day” in Michigan. 🙂
- Eric Peters says reopen and reject.
- The great Paul Rosenberg: Nothing changes as long as we obey.
- Still waiting for that $125 Equifax was going to send you for sloppily letting your personal information be grabbed by identity thieves? You aren’t getting it, but banks are getting their share.
- Wearing a mask, are you? Not to worry; this company thinks it can help Big (and Little) Brother recognize and track you via your eyes and eyebrows alone.
- And this company (not letting the Covid-19 crisis go to waste!) wants to combine facial recognition with mandatory health scans so it can decide whether you should be “allowed” to work.
- Eight ways to protect your privacy from Alexa. But they forgot Way #1: Don’t let one of those devices into your house.
- Norma McCorvey, the troubled woman known to history as Jane Roe, confessed shortly before dying that she was paid to lie about having converted to the anti-abortion cause. I take no public position on abortion; but that’s a weirdly newsworthy revelation. It seems both McCorvey and her supporters were playing each other. Or trying to.
- Every damn do-gooder and billionaire (and, gods forbid, every do-gooding billionaire) has a plan for remaking the world over in his or her image after Covid-19. Nope, not Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg (though them too, of course). This time it’s Jamie Dimon.
- Did the lockdown concept really originate in a school paper by a 14-year-old girl?
- This I want to see. Have a Good Trip is a gateway drug to legitimizing psychedelics.
- Lockdown resistance art. H/T ComradeX
- An oldie but a goodie: Sudden Savants. How a few people have become geniuses after severe brain injuries.
- Majorly cool — if also majorly strange! — nerd house.
Zara should have seen it coming!
“Why put up with any of it?……..
“Why not ignore all of it?
Why not just do business? Offer what you’ve got to sell – and if people are willing to buy it, sell it to them. No one’s being coerced. No one’s being hurt.
Everyone is free to come – and go.
Imagine that!……….
+1
But Bill Gates won’t be happy!
+1 to that too!
Norma McCorvey, the troubled woman known to history as Jane Roe,
Aaaand, cue the movie: “AKA Jane Roe”
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12005998/
Happy Memorial Weekend, sans memorials
[…] Claire Wolfe at Living Freedom – Wednesday links. […]
Obviously, Randall Terry, who worked with McCorvey for many years in the pro-life movement, has a very different perspective on her “confession.” Freely admitting my own pro-life bias and the risks that brings of believing the story I prefer, I think his story sounds plausible and that he makes some valid points calling into question the story as presented in the movie, video footage or not. (Which I have not seen.) As far as making money, she would have been far better off financially with the pro-abortion movement.
https://noqreport.com/2020/05/25/fx-disney-twists-roe-v-wade-plaintiff-norma-mccorveys-heartfelt-pro-life-conversion-into-a-judas-like-betrayal-for-money/
she would have been far better off financially with the pro-abortion movement
Not sure I see how that would happen. Once Roe v Wade was decided, she had done about all she could for the pro-abortion cause. Her “coming out” in the 1970s would have been exceedingly dangerous.
And while the pro-life cause pictures itself as the underdog, I’d guess it has quite a bit of funding available. But I’m not passionate enough about that issue to go investigate sources.
Regardless, RIP.
This is a good summation of the history of the pro-life movement. I’ve heard some of it over the years, and closely watched the movement building since the 1970s.
https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2016/november/abolishing-abortion-the-history-of-the-pro-life-movement-in-america/
But I object to the terminology, as it’s been presented in relation to each other.
The opposite of pro-choice is anti-choice (or no-choice). The opposite of pro-life is anti-life (or no-life). The two terms are not in the same category, nor should they be antagonistic or incompatible.
One can be pro-choice AND pro-life at the same time. A woman can CHOOSE to have a baby by sexual activity, by in vitro fertilization, or by artificial insemination; likewise she can choose NOT to have a baby, either by abstinence, contraception, or abortion.
But they BOTH choose, and that is an element that pro-lifers ignore, or CHOOSE to forget.
Link of the Year:
https://twitter.com/AmiHorowitz/status/1267908030206816259
This one might beat it;
https://mobile.twitter.com/cleotrapawest/status/1267652333804150785