Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
I stopped reading the article right around the "3 days of 21st century medical heroism". I've never been squeamish...I've seen some pretty gnarly things...but I cannot do infant or child suffering stories any more. I chalk it up to having three small ones of my own, but regardless, I cannot, for the sake of idle blogging, read those things anymore.God bless the parents.
Same as Scott M.
Here's what I don't understand about the New York Times. Why don't they sell "blogger subscriptions," which would allow a blogger to post links which went straight through to the site regardless of the reader being a registered NYT user. I simply refuse to register with the Times just so I can read an article... particularly since, if I pop over to Google and find the article that way, I can click through and read without registration.It seems to me that it would be a nice source of revenue for them. They get both the subscription revenue from the blogger who wants to increase the value they offer readers and of course all the advertising eyeballs from folks clicking through.Ok, enough of my rant. I may or may not pop over to Google now to read the linked article without having to give my name to the Times.
Now that was interesting. I did pop over to Google and searched for "perform a bris" and "unnecessary pain." It found the NYT article, and I tried to click through (I had previously clicked through from the Althouse link), and it wouldn't let me see the article without registration.Then I opened Firefox (I normally use Safari) and ran the exact same search, the only difference being that I had never tried to access that article in the Firefox browser. I got the same search results, but this time when I clicked through from the Google link to the story, I went right to the article, without having to register.So the NYT sets a cookie to record that you've tried to view an article via a direct, non-Google link, and if you have, it won't let you read the article by clicking though a Google link without registering. But if you've never tried to access the article except through Google, then it's got no problem letting you read it without registration.Very weird, and oddly obsessive of them. More reason not to bother with the NY Times, to my mind.
Oh, good lord, how can you not be registered to read the NYT? The damned thing is free. Who didn't register years ago?
Sorry, I link to the NYT every day. This blog got started and took the course it did as an extension of my decades-long habit of reading the NYT. The most basic thing this blog is is reading the NYT.
I proof read deposition transcripts for a living. Some of them are medical deps. Some of those involve malpractice before, during or after the birth of a child. It is tough reading. I won't do it without being paid.
I understand, professor. And I register with other papers, on occasion. But there's just something about the way the Times does it that has always stuck in my craw (entirely independently of their political biases). Irrational as it may be, given the myriad ways we are all tracked on the internet, I don't particularly trust the New York Times to know precisely what articles I read in their digital pages, and when.Since they allow people to have unregistered access if they go through Google, why do they require others to register? To borrow a phrase, it heightens the annoyingness of reading the NY Times. I used to use BugMeNot, but that's not very effective anymore.
I mean, it's one thing to have to register in order to comment. That, I understand and agree with. But to have to register just to READ something? Silly and unnecessary.
The Blonde is like Freeman and ScottM.I can see why. Tough thing to go through.
Not free forever or for everyone:Starting in January 2011, a visitor to NYTimes.com will be allowed to view a certain number of articles free each month; to read more, the reader must pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the print newspaper, even those who subscribe only to the Sunday paper, will receive full access to the site without any additional charge.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/business/media/21times.html
@Mary Beth The article you link to is over a year old. I haven't seen the change go in. If it does, I think it will be that blogs that link will get you in without paying.But this thing of needing to register -- which must have to do with showing something or other to their advertisers -- is separate from that. It's been going on since at least the 90s. Deal with it unless you are protesting, but your protest is at odds with the project of this blog.
Med students told me that Circumcision often led to infection (nonreligious). Lawyer I knew had some malpractice cases where instead of a knife a ring was used with electric current. Unfortunately boys tend to leak a bit and the whole thing dropped off. I told story to a law school student at the Y and the guy doing bench presses nearly die when he atarted to laugh. Moral-use a stone knife.
The doctor did what doctors do, they finished the sex change operation. I have heard that does not always turn out well.
I hang in mommy-blog corners and saw this pop up on twitter last night.I think you were supposed to read through to the end where the same mohel ended up performing the bris on their second child (who lived). The parents asked him back because he handled the first one compassionately and well. It's supposed to be affirming.Somehow, while I found it a little uplifting at the end, the overall content of the article with an otherwise healthy baby dying unexpectedly after birth didn't do it for me. My kids are still small. I can't handle children in peril. I just can't.
I find that occasionally clearing history and cookies means that the NYTimes thinks I've not read for a while, and I can get in free.It also helps that I have 3 different computers.
I should have paid attention to the date on the article. They were talking about NYT going behind a paywall last night on NPR and so when I did a search I just assumed it was the same plan.During the news story they played the sound from a xtranormal video but I didn't hear them credit xtranormal.
Anyhoo...back to the article...I found it to be painfully touching and moving.
I am struck by the difference in which the dead babies are treated here as against that charnel house in Philly. The oh so smart people will laugh but I contend it is the difference in people who are seriously religious and those who aren't
Scott M said... I stopped reading the article right around the "3 days of 21st century medical heroism". I've never been squeamish...I've seen some pretty gnarly things...but I cannot do infant or child suffering stories any more. I chalk it up to having three small ones of my own, but regardless, I cannot, for the sake of idle blogging, read those things anymore. God bless the parents.I'm with you. I can't take reading about children/infants dying or suffering. It breaks my heart and it just makes me think back to when my daughter was growing up and how lucky we were with her and to read about these parents and I can't even imagine it. I can't.
This is what the New York Times does well that so few other papers know how to do. If only they realized that.
Six days of the week the Times calls for a Judenrein west bank, on the seventh day they do a breathy piece lauding a Jewish tradition. It's obscene but worse is the fact that Jews continue to be the rag's most loyal readers.
"The most basic thing this blog is is reading the NYT."On the contrary.The worst thing this blog is is reading the NYT.It drags down the blog. the least interesting discussions are the ones where you link us to some idiotic crap written in the NY Times.Who the hell wants to read about male genital mutilation perfomed on dead babies?
Peter said... I am struck by the difference in which the dead babies are treated here as against that charnel house in Philly. The oh so smart people will laugh but I contend it is the difference in people who are seriously religious and those who aren'tYour distinction does not go unnoticed. The observance to the reverence of life from those that would try to hold onto it for as long as they can vs. those that see it as a mere commodity or inconvenience does not go unheeded. Life, for what little time we have of it, is more precious than the screeching, screaming, teeth gnashing, breast beaters, who would willingly and cavalierly dismiss it as a mere agitprop to their political agenda.
The Hebrew in the NYT article was way incorrect. It should have been, "Adonai hu ha-elohim," not "Ani hu ha-elohim." The former means, "The Lord he is God," said among other occasions upon someone's death, while the latter makes no sense ("I he is God.")Let's hope it was the NYT's mistake, not the doctor's or, God forbid, the rabbi's!
Just wanted to tell you that while your regular commentors didn’t seem to appreciate this post I sure did! (I read here fairly often, I’m usually too late to join in the comments though) Most of them didn’t even bother to read it it seems. They missed a good read on the affirmation of life. While they were going “Yuk! Dead babies!!”(OK,that's a little harsh), I read that while death is going to happen, no matter how advanced 21st century medicine is, life is a gift we are given that will some day be taken back. The folks in the story celebrated that short life, and gave it back to God. I have prayed every day for almost thirteen years that my 12 year old be kept safe, as I’m sure most parents do. But if the unthinkable was to happen though I would grieve enormously, if I dwelled on the death, and not the wonder of her life…well that way lies madness.(wow! a prophectic wv...joinest)
Not this Jew, ricpic. That and I'm a bitter clinger, but being a Jewish bitter clinger I cling not only to my guns and my religion but my money too. I don't waste it reading political agitprop pretending to be honest reporting.Why are my co-religionists such a bunch of Bolsheviks?
For the latest news visit us on cnn.comhttp://whois.domaintasks.com/cnn.com
Post a Comment