“There is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more.”—Robert Nozick (via hipsterlibertarian)
If you are against abortion, you are anti-abortion.
If you support abortion, you are pro-abortion.
‘Pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ are meaningless terms that serve merely as distractions to debating the actual issue of abortion.
No one is pro-abortion. Those of us who support the right for women to be able to have an abortion also overwhelmingly support measures that would reduce the number of abortions that happen. We support better sex education (for all ages),
improved access to contraceptives,
and social programs that would alleviate many of the stresses of becoming a parent:
like state-assisted abortion.
affordable child care, WIC,
food stamps, CHIP, medicaid, and other welfare programs that help women provide for their children, flexible education programs and jobs that allow women to work or prepare to work and still be mothers, compulsory sick time provided by employers, etc.
We would much prefer that women have full control over their reproductive health so that unintended pregnancy is not an issue at all, or that women have better prospects for their life after having children so that having children becomes a more appealing option.
You mean abortion.
Abortion is not our goal. Women’s health and wellbeing—physical, emotional, and financial—is.
and, in the inevitable absence of that, abortion.
We are pro-choice, though. Most of us who advocate maintaining abortion as a legal medical option for women do so in the belief that women have the right to make choices about their reproductive organs and health, and that no one else should have the right to make their choices for them.
Namely, the choice of abortion.
Pro-choice is absolutely the correct term, because it is the only one that accurately describes our argument. “Pro-abortion” is an inflammatory, grossly inaccurate scare term that is more an attempt at slandering people you disagree with than it is at capturing what people actually stand for. Calling someone pro-abortion is a distraction, because anyone who does so is clearly more interested in sliming and misrepresenting the people they disagree with than it is in having an actual discussion.
Actually, I probably have more pro- friends and colleagues who openly refer to themselves as pro-abortion than anti’s.
I don’t get it. Why do you pro-borts even attempt to keep up this fight? Why are you so scared of openly terming yourselves to be in favor of the very thing you advocate? Is it possibly because “abortion” (you know, the thing you adamantly want people to have the right to do) has an understandably negative connotation that you want to distance yourself from, so that you don’t have to start every discussion with “Well, I’m not a murderer, but…”? I mean, it’s understandable, plenty of people do it—look at the People’s Democratic Republic of China. But c’mon guys, at some point you gotta step up, open up and be honest with yourselves and everyone else. Say it loud, say it proud: “I support abortion!”
You know, I never get tired of talking about feminism. It’s a delicious subject because feminists are always getting their comeuppance. The law of unintended consequences just kicks them around constantly. It’s hilarious. I don’t think I delight in anything quite as much as I do seeing someone, or a group of someones, get exactly what’s coming to them.
Feminists may insist that life for women has gotten better since the days when raucous female activists marched in the streets for equality and questioned traditional social mores about men, marriage and career.
Pollsters say otherwise. Things are out of kilter. And pretty dismal, according to a Harris Poll released Monday.
It goes on to state that 4 out of 5 people (men and women as a group, and each gender individually) say “women today are treated with less chivalry than in the past.” But you know, I’ve touched on this subject before. Do women really want chivalry? It seems they don’t. And yet they seem to miss it when it’s gone.
I really really like the way P.M. Forni defined the term in this article:
"We should have a clear notion of what chivalry is — it was a form of preferential treatment that men once accorded to women generations ago, inspired by the sense that there was something special about women, that they deserve added respect, and that not doing so was uncouth, cowardly and essentially despicable."
Notice a couple terms in there: “preferential treatment,” “something special about women,” “deserve added respect.”
These are pretty antithetical to feminism, don’t you think? Feminism is all about tearing down gender roles, embraces ”no consequence” sexual liberation, and is high on the idea of equality among the sexes across the board. But they do so at the cost of that quality that makes them “special” and “deserving of added respect.” I mean, really, how can one say, “I want to be treated equal” and “I want to be treated special” at the same time? Isn’t the former an admission of not desiring chivalry and gentlemen?
I’ve mentioned before about how I’ve been chewed out by feminists for simple acts of gentlemanly courtesy—holding doors, offering to stand so she can sit, offering to carry something heavy, paying for dinner, etc. I’d argue that’s chivalrous, wouldn’t you? Now, there have been many women to come along and say that’s admirable and desirable in a man—but society seems to disagree. Society seems to have this notion that doing such things means advancing some stereotype that women are helpless and need men to do stuff for them—and thus they reject chivalry when it’s offered. But then people turn around and lament that men aren’t chivalrous anymore. It’s like, people, make up your mind—what do you want?
This carries over into sex as well. Women these days are—well, they’re pretty easy. No more buying the cow to get the milk, no more courting, no more real effort on the part of guys. Women will just kind of roll over and spread their legs. A generalization of women, sure—but we all know that a lot of women these days are into casual sex, hookups, and one-night-stands. “Women love and want sex just as much as men,” the feminists are constantly reminding us. Well if that’s the case, then why should men respect them as women when it pertains to sex? They’re just like guys, right? So why not treat them as such? It’s like they’re asking to be treated as sexual objects. This “sexual liberation” has really destroyed the “specialness” of sex in general, and especially destroyed the notion that the woman you’re sleeping with is anything special. Because if she’d just as easily sleep with anyone else, of what meaning can it possibly towards you? (It’s actually kind of like basic economics. You flood the market with something, its value substantially decreases. This is why things that are “rare” are “worth more.”) And this is actually a hotly contested point by feminists—they truly don’t believe that sex is anything special. It’s just… a recreational activity to them. Well if you’re just looking for a bolt to wrap a nut around, what’s the point of chivalry? Why would you even miss it if all you want to do is get laid?
The article asks a very good question: “Can women have equal pay and chivalry, she asks, or does it have to be one or the other?”
And substitute “equal pay” for any number of things. “Sexual liberation.” “Self-sufficiency.”
It smacks of the sudden realization that feminists can’t have their cake and eat it too—no matter how hard they try. Is this what they wanted? Is this what we, as a society, wanted? Seems to me, despite 4 out of 5 people lamenting the death of chivalry, that the feminist progressive movement got exactly what it was asking for.
“'Something made by an artist' is not a definition of art. A beard and a vacant stare are not the defining characteristics of an artist. 'Something in a frame hung on a wall' is not a definition of a painting. 'Something with a number of pages in a binding' is not a definition of literature. 'Something piled together' is not a definition of sculpture. 'Something made of sounds produced by anything' is not a definition of music. 'Something glued on a flat surface' is not a definition of any art. There is no art that uses glue as a medium. Blades of grass glued on a sheet of paper to represent grass might be good occupational therapy for retarded children—though I doubt it—but it is not art. 'Because I felt like it' is not a definition or validation of anything.”—Any Rand, The Romantic Manifesto
I get a blinding headache every time I log onto Tumblr, seeing would-be artists trying to pretend that their “art” is somehow artistic just because they put paint to canvas or learned how to develop film. It shows such an unforgivable ignorance of the medium that it defies reason.
Take this, for instance:
Here’s the finished version taken in natural light. Interesting what indoor and outdoor light does to a painting, isn’t it?
OK, there are four major artistic flaws I see in this painting. The fact that nobody seems to have noticed them (or had the guts to point them out) is galling.
Most obviously, the way the tree/light/whatever is drawn to the left. The focal point in the original picture is supposed to be the moon (it actually ends up being the street light, largely because of the camera angle). In this, the tree… light… things (I still can’t tell what the hell they’re supposed to be—although one person suggested that they’re an attempt at a poor Van Gogh ripoff) are so overdone that they draw the visual focus to the left, which overshadows the rest of the painting.
It’s not even drawn evenly. The green house (which is needlessly warped—especially in contrast to its rigidity in the photo) throws out any real sense of depth—which was huge in the picture. In fact, it was that house that provided a very defining line in the photograph that gives the photo its depth. She threw away both the depth and the rigidity of it that was its entire point and, in effect, drew the “sky” way closer than it should be.
And you can (sort of) blame this on #2—the sidewalk/street. That is god-awful. The photo displays this empty street and empty sidewalk that goes on into nothingness. The painting connects the street and the sidewalk into this path that turns the entire shot into a dead end. That’s the fault of failing to portray the depth in the painting. The moon is so rammed into the foreground that it makes the path/street look stupid (and, in fact, I bet a lot of depth could have preserved had she not done that. Close one eye and put a finger between the street and the sidewalk, covering up that bit that’s connecting them. Instantly the painting gains significantly more depth).
The roof of the house in the foreground. Because of the angle of the photo, she doesn’t quite know how to capture it in paint. The result is that it looks like some kind of Dali-esque acid trip where the top floor is sliding off the building. Simply put, she got her angles way way wrong.
These are just the glaring flaws. And yet, I review the thread and it’s all compliments. Does nobody see this besides me? Or do they just not want to say it?
I know you people will hate it (and thus dismiss it outright), but there’s a quote that’s very appropriate to this situation:
"The art of any given period or culture is a faithful mirror of that culture’s philosophy. If you see obscene, dismembered monstrosities leering at you from today’s esthetic mirrors—the aborted creations of mediocrity, irrationality and panic—you are seeing the embodied concretized reality of the philosophical premises that dominate today’s culture. Only in this sense can those manifestations be called “art”—not by the intention or accomplishment of their perpetrators, but only by grace of the fact that even in usurping the field of art, one cannot escape from its revelatory purpose.
It is a frightening sight, but it has a certain didactic value: those who do not wish to surrender their future to the mercy and power of unfocused gargoyles, can learn from them what swamp is their breeding ground and what disinfectant is needed to fight them. The swamp is modern philosophy; the disinfectant is reason.”
I suppose what really bothers me about it, what the truly sickening part of it is, is how so completely mindlessly everybody fawns over anything that’s remotely “artistic” these days. I picked a fight about this in a forum I frequent about two and a half years ago. It started with a simple question: “Would anyone have the guts to tell you if they didn’t like it?”
Did they like the piece because it was good? Or did they like it because they like the person that created it? Or did they like it just to appear encouraging and non-critical? Or maybe they were just holding their tongues and being polite. That’s a big problem with modern art. Really, it’s a problem with the general social mindset. It’s this notion that anyone who throws something on a canvas or points an old-timey camera at something is suddenly some revered artist who should be complimented and appreciated.
I mean, there are clear flaws here. And don’t pitch me any of this “art is subjective” nonsense. There is an obvious difference between what’s “art” and what’s “garbage.”
I’m told that the artist defends her piece as “surreal impressionism.”
OK, you know what? Anybody that puts those two words together clearly does not know the meaning of either. That is modernist nonsense verbiage to try and give legitimacy to a terrible piece of art because they can’t handle criticism of it. Or, worse, it’s a term someone else uses to define a terrible piece of art because they don’t want to be judgmental of it.
Ugh, people, I can’t take this anymore. Why the world insists on destroying everything great and wonderful and reasonable and intelligent in the world to make room for this shit is beyond me.
Art used to mean something, people. “Something made by a self-proclaimed artist” is NOT what it meant.
Sometimes, you get the feeling that President Obama simply isn’t very comfortable being president. Sure, he loves speaking before adoring crowds. And we all know that he adores his trusty troop of teleprompters. But as soon as he moves off script – when we get Obama being Obama – he seems ill at ease. Unless he’s in his element, that is. He’s in his element while playing golf. He’s in his element while playing basketball. And apparently, he’s in his element while appearing on “The View.” In the past, I’ve compared Obama to a teenage girl. “The president is like an unattractive high school girl desperately looking for a date to the prom,” I wrote in June 2009. “Any boor can take her home for a few compliments.” He may not be a teenage girl, but he certainly likes chatting like one. It is utterly unpresidential for a sitting president to spend his days chatting up Joy Behar just because, as Obama put it, “Look, I was trying to find a show that Michelle actually watched, and so I thought this is it, right here.” Note to President Obama: if you want to talk to Michelle, walk down the hall. You don’t have to subject the rest of the country to the spectacle of Joy Behar drooling on your sleeve.
When you think of the President of the United States, of what do you think? I don’t know about anyone else, but I tend to think of him in terms of his powers and duties. He’s Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. He is our principle foreign diplomat in dealing with other nations. He controls the various treaties and trade agreements with other nations, and sets up foreign policies (with some Senate oversight). And he appoints specific officials—namely: Supreme Court judges, his Cabinet, and foreign ambassadors.
These are his specific powers under the Constitution. (Who knows where without cheating? Tsk tsk.) Very very limited. Really, that was always the point of the Executive Branch. They weren’t really supposed to meddle in national affairs, so much as deal with other countries as the representative of the United States as a whole.
But, we all know that in this day and age, a little more is expected of the President by the citizens. OK, fine. So, I also think of his Oath. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. OK, so we (and by “we,” I mean judges, Constitutional scholars, and political philosophers—not you average ignorant schmucks) have come to sort of interpret that as a duty to work towards the country’s internal survival. This is largely how Lincoln justified his actions during the Civil War, and Presidents all the way through George W. Bush largely followed under that same general principle.
And, of course, the President is the one that signs bills into law (or vetoes them). So, he’s got to be pretty aware of what Congress is doing with domestic policy and be able to chime in when he has an opinion on something. He doesn’t really have any business proposing laws or trying to influence Congress to make laws - but he can give them an idea of what he’ll sign and what he’ll veto.
So, the people like and have come to expect that the President will work toward and address various domestic issues in addition to his enumerated powers. OK, so what does that mean? Well, as an elected representative, it means that he has his finger to the pulse of the citizen body. If there’s a disaster, he tells us what he’s going to do about it. If there’s a war going on, he keeps us updated on it. If there’s a public outcry for something, he addresses it. We’ve got problems—both foreign and domestic—and most of them wind up on the White House welcome mat.
So, let’s think about a few of those problems. 1) We’ve got World War V going on. (What, you thought there’d only been two? Wrong.) Regardless of your feelings about that war—it’s there, the enemy is a very serious problem, and it and they need to be dealt with. 2) There’s the fallout of a massive ecological disaster in our waters (speaking of which, I didn’t hear a lot of media outlets reporting the fact that the oil spill was finally stopped—god forbid they inform us of anything positive in this whole mess… guess that wouldn’t suit their agendas.) 3) Our southern border, apparently made of swiss cheese, is a principle cause of a large amount of national security, economic, criminal, and environmental concerns. 4) Unemployment has reached insane levels causing derivative effects on the housing market, consumer spending, and investment. 5) Our economy is completely crippled. $14 trillion in debt, the stock market is a train wreck, and the dollar value is falling like a stone.
And that’s just the really really big problems. One could go on for days about the littler problems—like health care, and religious freedom, and poverty, and education, and racism, and gay marriage, and crime rates, and gun control, and tort reform. All of this falling at the feet of the President of the United States.
And what’s he doing about it? Making appearances on daytime talk shows. Are you kidding me? This stupid, useless, idiot President has a million things he need to address, and he’s spending his time yukking it up with the harpies on The View!?! And he’s not even there to talk about anything whatsoever related to politics or the state of the nation! On a forum watched by millions, he’s asked how hip he is to pop culture! The topics of discussion: Mel Gibson drunk on rageohol, some television show I’ve never heard of and someone on it, and Lindsay freakin’ Lohan. Oh, and how about a dig at Sarah Palin? That’ll be good for a few laughs! Am I in Bizarro World here?! What the hell is going on?! What in the world is the President of the United States doing on The View?
How does this POSSIBLY benefit the nation in ANY way? No, seriously—name ONE single way. This nation, that once was a bastion of intellectualism and technological advancement and social progress, now riddled with problems that rival the ten plagues of Egypt—and he overtly ignores them to instead stick himself in front of every camera he can find! What the hell is wrong with this man?! Is there nothing more important to do right now than show up on TV to continue this illusion that he’s “just one of us?” On a show that explicitly panders to idiots?!
I’ve had it. I’ve had it with this useless President. This media whore who insists on a press conference for everything, and then flagrantly ignores any and all of his responsibilities as the leader of the free world. Does he not GET that he’s the President? Is he under the impression that he’s some Hollywood celebrity? This is not what the President of the United States does, people.
I’m done. I’m DONE! I have no more words to express how completely useless this man is, and how everyone who voted for him has to have had the IQ of a brick. Man, I thought Bill Clinton disgraced the office with his antics—but good god, Barack Obama has done it twice as much in half the time.
Somebody—anybody—tell me what the hell this man is doing for this country. Because honestly, I no longer have ANY idea.