Consequently, for the duration my posting quantity and quality will finally match.
If it quacks like the truth, you read it on the Daily Duck.
They're young, hip, and in a hurry. And on any given day, anyone can find female cyclists cruising through a predominantly Hasidic section of Williamsburg, where conservative religious views frown upon less than buttoned-up commuters.Unfortunately, dressing to appease those hypersensitive about the female form is a recipe for a clothing-in-the-spokes induced case of pavement rash. Never mind that the women cyclists in question, not being Hasidics themselves, would probably have to be comatose to care even less than they already do about yet another example of Abrahamic misogyny.
"[Sarah Palin backs parental consent laws because consent is required in nearly every other] aspect of a child's life." But that logic is backward. The more profoundly a decision affects a girl's future, the more vital it is that no one, even her parents, be authorized to veto it. And nothing short of death alters a person's life more profoundly than bringing a child into the world. It is the moment when you cease to be the primary purpose of your own existence.The Advice Goddess [Update: link fixed](whom I stumbled upon thanks a link in Arts & Letters Daily) editorialized, finding in favor of Mr. Saleton. I posted this response (Sep 8, 12:20 am):
Saleton, who I read often and whose writing I generally like, has waltzed the both of you right past the primary point without even noticing it go by. Along the way, you both also make, by omission, an implicit assumption that is completely wrong.
(In the following, keep in mind that I Am Not A Christian, although I know some who are, and also that I Am Not A Woman, although I know some who are. Also, I am pro-choice.)
First, the point: The Mr. & Mrs. Palin have a strong moral attitude towards life and abortion. That I, or you, do not share that attitude does not mean we can avoid its implications in their lives. For them, life begins at conception, and any human action to end it constitutes murder. Abortion, even of a blastocyst, is murder, pure and simple.
This is not the thread to debate the advisability of this moral decision, or some very real contradictions in practice.
However, this is very much the place to discuss the consequences of that moral decision.
First, for Christians, moral decisions do not become optional simply because their consequences are inconvenient, or even life changing. Second, that means that so long as Bristol is a dependent, and her parents are not Christians of convenience, then there is simply no discussion, regardless of all the harrowing statistics surrounding teen pregnancies. For true Christians -- and, I suspect all truly moral people -- moral decisions are not in thrall to the difficulty of their consequences.
I doubt Mr. Saleton even once acknowledged this aspect of the Palin's moral life, which is surpassing odd considering how central it obviously is. Typical of a liberal, but that is a topic for another thread.
The second is the implicit, but far from acknowledge, position in this statement:
The more profoundly a decision affects a girl's future, the more vital it is that no one, even her parents, be authorized to veto it. And nothing short of death alters a person's life more profoundly than bringing a child into the world.
Can you see what the assumption is?
That of the three options on offer -- abortion, adoption, and keeping the baby -- the assumption is that abortion does not constitute a death, and that death will not profoundly alter the mother's life.
Now, as mentioned above, IANAW. However, I happen to know some people who are. One of them is my 15-yr old daughter. In her world, the angels shed a tear whenever a kitten is hurt. There is simply no way, should she become a teen pregnancy statistic, that she could have an abortion and not carry that with her for the rest of her life. It might be the most convenient decision, but that sure as heck does not mean it comes without profound costs.
All the options facing a pregnant teen are bad; all are likely to be emotionally scarring -- for life. Pretending that one is not is simply nonsense. (Since IANAW, nearly everything women do leaves me in a pretty constant state of astonishment, but the obvious failure of girls and young women to take this glaringly obvious -- and existentially central -- fact on board cranks the astonishment level right up to 11.)
As a consequence of missing the fundamental point, and making an unwarranted assumption, Mr. Saleton's conclusion is fatally holed below the water line.
As a society, we must make laws that define one thing from another, even where the boundary may not be terribly clear. Our society defines adulthood as starting at 18. Consequently, a young woman, Bristol in this case, is simply not a moral agent: she does not get to make moral decisions that contradict those of her parents.
Perhaps he would see this more clearly if the shoe was to be shifted to another foot. Do the young man's parents get to make a decision about whether he must -- not should, must -- marry Bristol? If it was my son, all the moral instruction I have given him through life would mean I would do everything in my power to make him marry the mother. He would know that I would always view him as dishonorable should he not shoulder his responsibility, no matter how inconvenient: actions have consequences, our actions define us. That is what parents capable of making moral distinctions do.*
Allowing Bristol to have an abortion would make a mockery of the moral instruction her parents have provided her. Citing inconvenient statistics changes that not one whit. Pretending that an abortion makes the problem go away is staggering nonsense, no matter one's view on abortion's moral considerations, and succeeds only in objectifying women.
So, instead of describing how certain actions -- in this case, pre-marital sex -- can have inescapable life altering consequences, and that stories such as this underline that point, Saleton creates a new victim class; somehow, I doubt he is a parent.
If one wanted to find the shortcomings of the liberal outlook, there is no need to search any further than this.
What surprises me, Amy, is your following his lead.
Wildlife-rich wetlands that covered 9,000 square km (3,475 square miles) in the early 1970s had dwindled to just 760 square km (293 square miles) by 2002. Experts said the marshes might be lost completely within five years unless urgent action was taken.And the urgent action taken was:
After Saddam's downfall locals wrecked many of the dams to let the water rush back in and a $14 million UNEP restoration project prompted the return of thousands of birds and fish.I'm sorry -- I didn't quite make the out. The urgent action that was taken was?
That included providing safe drinking water to residents, planting reeds to filter pollution and sewage, and the introduction of renewable energy schemes like solar power.
The Iraqi government says more than half the original wetlands have now been restored ...
... Saddam's downfall ...Nope, sorry. Still didn't quite make that out.
[From the exhibition text for Anish Kapoor's show in Munich's Haus der Kunst (2007/08):] "In Kapoor's work, material plays a central role, although always in connection with an idea of presence and spirituality that transcends the superficial 'actuality' of the object. In Kapoor's words: 'In a certain way matter always leads to something immaterial.' He sees this as the fundamentally paradoxical yet complementary proviso of the material world. (...) Terms like lightness, slowness and growth seem to be the inspiration and driving force for Kapoor's new kinetic objects and spacial objects shown in this exhibition. At the root of them all is Kapoor's expression of anxiety through unabashed emblems and formal reference to sexuality and violence: the unspeakable is given voice."Beyond the amazement that should accompany reading so many words strung together grammatically yet completely avoiding meaning, it is worth noting the nearly perfect approximation of most religious writing.
RE: Elbow, elbow, wrist wrist*
Boys, boys, boys... You all seem too intelligent to lean so heavily on stereotypic assumptions and hyperbole. Ardent feminist that I am, it is a criticism I have of my own party as well.
The "heavily contested" point regarding Palin's gubernatorial win is arguable. She garnered backlash votes against an unpopular administration. Remember Jesse Ventura? And her prior position was as a part-time mayor of a community of, I believe, 7000. Her successes in her state are laudable, but can she survive the kiln of Washington, much less the world? She is interesting, refreshingly honest, apparently hardworking, but not articulate or tough enough to represent us to heads of state.
Reports quote her as stating that once she found out what a veep's responsibilities are she would *consider* the position and she questioned what the position would do for her state of Alaska.
But all that is simply the flotsam to throw back and forth over beers (or better, dirty martinis), my main point is this.... (yes, I actually have one)...
Impartial I am not, but it seems mind numbingly wrong to think that her ovaries will garner the sought after Hillary votes. Barak and Hill hold the same opinions and virtually the same approach to the "major" issues. In our camp, it was a decision between two positives -- one familiar with the system, the other a visionary intent on healing the economy, environment, racial tensions and so on. And the fact that one has black heritage and the other is a woman was bonus--- our government should reflect our country.
That Palin holds an opposite view on so many positions held dear to us is enough to get the most disgruntled hairy-legged Hill supporter to cast her vote for Barak. But, the 'pubs could have selected a woman with more chutzpa and made more movement. Who? Not so sure as I am not overly familiar with conservative women, but think of someone like Elizabeth Dole ten years ago, Condie.... Ann Richards ( ;-)
Somewhere on your blog there are references to her using terms like attractive, bringing feminine calm to the white house and other such things. Be careful. It is terms like that that will create a strong backlash against her. The first woman in space, the first several high ranking in the military, the first on the assembly line, the first in commerce all needed to prove that they could play the house rules before they dared to break them. As much as I want to see a woman in the white house, my sista's and I will not accept Anita Bryant, Phylis Schlafly or Mary Kaye. She, who ever she is, needs to be the soldier first, citizen second and woman third. Biden hold back on the debates because she is a woman? As much as I hate a blood bath, I say bring it on.... if she can't handle his craziness and aggressive nature how could she possibly handle negotiations with the middle east?
Bottom line. Good citizen, could prove to be a successful influence on Alaskan politics, but she is out of her league.
In Obama's acceptance speech, he spoke of finding areas in which we could come together... reducing unwanted pregnancy... keeping AK47s from the hands of criminals.... etc, etc. I guess Palin's run as veep is another issue where both sides seem to be smiling.
Hugs and kisses from the fun party,