Five plus one this week, although the last one probably only matters if you have ties to Long Island.
* From The Atlantic, a look at from where post-election racist tweets emanated. There’s been a fair amount of debate over the practice of outing people, often kids, who say awful things on Twitter, but on this topic I subscribe to the thinking of Shakti Gawain, who said, “Evil is like a shadow – it has no real substance of its own, it is simply a lack of light… In order to cause a shadow to disappear, you must shine light on it.” And maybe we could make the morons who compound their ignorance by crying “freedom of speech!” after they’re exposed take a civics class to learn what the First Amendment actually means.
* Also from The Atlantic, a piece on the problem with “rape exceptions” in anti-abortion laws. The author makes a pretty compelling case that they’re worthless.
* Brandon Heipp’s piece at BP on the history of “replacement level” in baseball analysis was a great and timely read, given confusion over the term in the religious wars around the AL MVP contest.
* mental_floss delves into the secret lives of six spices. It quotes Giles Milton, whose book Nathaniel’s Nutmeg
* Bookmarked but unread, a short story recommended by Michael Ruhlman called “The End of Baseball.” It’s only accessible if you have Flash, as far as I can tell.
* I concede this is of interest to maybe a handful of people besides me, but this New York Times review of Kushi, a new sushi restaurant in Nesconset, caught my eye because it’s about a mile and a half from the house where I grew up, and which my parents just sold earlier this year. If anyone’s tried it, I’d love to hear how it is.
Yes those idiots have a freedom of speech, but that same freedom is allowed to those who would out them. Own your words and everything that comes from them.
I kind of feel as though those who oppose abortion do so without any skin in the game. They aren’t the one’s now asked to raise a child. There are already surplus children in state systems awaiting adoption, why don’t those who oppose abortion couple their opposition with fostering/adoption of children who frankly, aren’t wanted?
Brian – believe it or not, some people really believe that abortion is murder, and oppose it on those grounds.
Well, Mike, if one wants to push through legislation that’s banning abortion, shouldn’t that mean there will be more kids born to unfit mothers? Wouldn’t the solution be to have those whom claim murder to sign up to adopt/foster in order to really boost the life they claim to cherish so much? If there is a backlog of people wanting to adopt/foster and be parents then the abortion issue would disappear.
I’m not interested in an abortion debate, I just think too many oppose abortion as their most important issue without actually doing anything to actually solve the issue of unwanted kids. An unwanted child is far more harmful than a dead fetus.
I just can’t believe the lack of contraceptive education and funding. You can avoid lots of the messiness of the abortion debate with better education and access to measures that prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
The replacement level discussion made me think of an analysis of Trout’s rookie season by veteran reporter Lyle Spencer that went up yesterday. He referred to WAR as “controversial.” It’s only controversial to people who think that baseball cards are too informative. It is what it is. It’s not the be-all end-all, but it’s a good gauge of overall value.
I just can’t believe the lack of contraceptive education and funding.
And access. A lot of the same people fighting to restrict access to and funding for abortions are also fighting to limit access to birth control for minors. If your policy goal is to dramatically reduce the number of abortions, the best course of action is to dramatically reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
I’ve also come to see the debate over “reproductive rights” as a proxy war over women’s rights. If supporting the latter means taking a stronger stand than I’d like on the former, I’m all for it.
@Mike: A very high percentage of those same people also support the death penalty. I can’t reconcile those two views.
“I’ve also come to see the debate over ‘reproductive rights’…..”
It isn’t a debate over reproductive rights. It’s a debate about the right to live. To be clear, I (for one) fully our right to make all types of decisions concerning reproduction (including the oft overlooked “right” to not put oneself in the position to have an unwanted pregnant) and there needs to be as much education as possible. But once a pregnancy takes, those rights irrevocably change and must be balanced against the right to life of the unborn child.
Re: the death penalty/abortion. They are not irreconcilable. The murderer has taken action that in the eyes of the law forfeits her right to live. The unborn child has done no such thing. I (for one) am somewhat ambivalent on the death penalty. Well, not ambivalent. I think both sides have strong points. Undecided. But, I don’t think supporting the death penalty is irreconcilable with opposing abortion.
* “…fully SUPPORT our right to make all types….”
Proofread!
Keith,
It’s funny because I almost typed the exact same thing about the death penalty. I completely agree that those two views are impossible to reconcile if you’re being intellectually honest with yourself.
My personal view is that pro life/pro choice is a personal moral and/or religious choice. I’m pro life personally, but don’t think it should be legislated against any more than divorce or adultery should be made illegal.
Mike and Keith,
While I am personally pro-choice and opposed to the death penalty, I think it is possible to be logically and intellectually consistent while being pro-life and in favor of the death penalty. In its simplest form, the argument is that the fetus/unborn child/however-you-want-to-frame it is an innocent life; those on death row are not. The issue is with the labeling… “Pro-life” really only captures their position vis-a-vis abortion; it is not the entirety of their world view.
Again, I don’t support or hold those beliefs, but I think it is wholly possible to reconcile them.
I heard a radio spot recently that was opposed to abortion and spoke about the 50 million lives taken via it. I started to think what our country would look like with roughly 50 million more people, most of them born into poverty. I wonder how happy those advocating for the complete ban on abortion would be about 50 million more folks, most of them likely brown and poor, inhabiting our country. I struggle to think they’d be pleased.
Using Roe V. Wade as an apparatus justifying murder to suppress the welfare state is fatuous. If the implication is that we can justify murder to reduce welfare rolls, why not simply “eliminate” those on welfare–problem solved! I agree with Keith that we need to do more to educate society on contaception/birth control; but abortion certainly shouldn’t be used as birth control.
I don’t think that was Kazzy’s impetus and a nefarious conclusion to draw. Very often the choice of abortion is a heavy decision and a chilling thing to actually execute. Every woman I personally know who has had an abortion has done so with a saddened heart and a realization that the burden is large. Their reason for carrying through with their choice is noble and importantly, an ethical decision they had to make. Most individuals never have to face true ethical decisions of such proportions and simply calling someone a murderer is giving short shrift to those who actually carry the burden of the potential child. There is no good answer but sometimes a poor choice is superior to an awful choice.
Brian,
It may not have been Kazzy’s impetus, but I have heard that argument (abortion>poverty-stricken child) on too many occasions to dismiss it outright. How many of the women you know that have had abortions have had more than one? I know a few–and it sickens me. Where do you draw the line? Women certainly have a right to contraception and the Supreme Court has given them the right to abortion (via the 14th Amendment and privacy rights, overtuning existing laws in 49 states banning abortion), but as a society we have carried Roe V Wade too far; and it goes way beyond women’s rights.
I think the author of the rape exception article misses the point.
It would be a bad policy, but so what? People don’t ask politicians about rape exceptions because they’re interested in instituting that policy, they ask about it to force politicians into a no-win declaration:
1. Forbid the rape exception and appear insensitive to the victims of a horrific violent crime, or
2. Grant the rape exception and have to explain how “abortion is child murder” doesn’t count for these kids and murdering them is OK
Marco: I love your logic, but I don’t feel like that’s why people ask for these exceptions. I think they recognize that a rape victim had no choice in her pregnancy, whereas women who get pregnant as a result of consensual sex are entirely to blame. It’s a value judgment – get pregnant when you don’t want to, you’re loose or immoral. I don’t agree with that thinking at all, but I believe that’s the prevailing sentiment behind these exceptions.
Incidentally, the exception you never hear about is when the child is not going to live. If your unborn child has Tay-Sachs, or another birth defect that will limit its life to a few months or even a few days, wouldn’t you consider an abortion not just for yourselves as parents but for the child to avoid a short, painful life?
Hell of a question, Keith.
I feel specially able to chime in on that. And that’s frankly half the reason I’m pro choice as I live the life of a parent with severe special needs and fully recognize its a massive burden. We are very lucky in that we are equipped to deal with our daughter adequately but we are an exception, not a rule. Faulting a woman for being unwilling to take that challenge is cowardly. While the many people I know who have children with special needs, and I know legion, love their children dearly, everyone of them would would be joyous at the elimination of the extra burden. Would they have chosen a different course if given the opportunity? Who knows but I assure you it’s been topic of pillow talk multiple times with my wife.
Making an ethical choice from ones arm chair, or more likely from behind their religious creed, is not understanding the particular situation of the mother, whatever that situation happens to be. It’s faulting others while not actually helping – very noble. It’s like calling Hollywood vapid while consuming tmz religiously.
Agh, sorry the kids issue is a touchy one for me.
mark,
My point is that many pro-life advocates argue AGAINST abortion, completely ignoring the reality of what they are advocating in favor of.
If you said, “Would you rather the world as we have it, with abortion, or a world where abortion was never legalized and wherein we have 50 million (or more, because many of those folks would have had children of their own) more folks, most of them poor and brown and voting Democratic,” my hunch is that their response would be, “Well, I don’t want any of those. I want no abortion but I don’t want all those nasty things that come with its prohibition.” Unfortunately, that is not a choice, not given the other policies they advocate for in conjunction with their opposition to abortion.
Kazzy,
I simply disagree with your rationale. Based on that logic we’d be better off sterilizing those in poverty. And for your own edification, people generally do not remain in poverty. For example, even if poverty rates remain fixed over a period of time, say five years, the (majority of) people comprising those rates is fluid.
Here’s something I have difficulty reconciling: Why can an abusive partner (rightfully) be charged with murder for causing miscarry via domestic violence, but a married 28 year-old with means can choose to abort the same child and face no criminal charges?
mark,
Second question first: Because we give great deference to the wishes and rights of the mother. For the same reason that you coming into my house and taking my TV is different than the garbage man taking my trash. I understand your objection to this, as I assume you would see less or no deference to the wishes/rights of the mother, but that is not how our current system works.
My logic does not support sterilization. My point on the matter is that many (but certainly not all) pro-lifers, if they had their way, instead of championing the lives saves would suddenly be complaining and fretting about the disappearing white majority and the millions of moochers and blah, blah, blah. For many (but not all) of them, their concern for life stops at birth, after which they often actively oppose policies designed to provide a quality and healthy life. Which shouldn’t be a consideration in the abortion debate, but I think the lack of consistency and long-term ramifications is worth pointing out.
Kazzy,
I do believe our current system provides too much deference to the mother. While I personally believe that abortion should only occur in cases of rape/incest/health of mother; I accept that the Supreme Court has ruled and it is unlikely to change. However, I do not have to accept that ruling as being cogent or anything other than judicial activism at its worst.
The implication that conservatives don’t care about the poor or the middle-class is asinine. If conservatives were so great at catering to the wealthy why did President Obama decisively carry eight of the ten wealthiest counties in the county?
mark,
I will fully cop to painting with broad brushstrokes. But they are based on conservatives bemoaning the eventual loss of a white majority (something that would be hastened had abortion remained illegal), kvetching about moochers and government dependence, and the like. None of these are arguments in favor of abortion. But the inconsistency of the messaging is informative: most “pro-lifers” care less about life than they often indicate.
Again, if you presented the two realities, not hypotheticals, I don’t think they’d be all that happy about choosing the option that would result from a complete and total ban on abortion.