Politics

[Whiskeyjack]

Maybe it's just because I hear the accusations from pro-choice people more often, but I think he does believe that we don't argue in good faith. No issue is really more important than protecting life, and I do agree with him that many use the position merely for political gain. But to call the March for Life baffling seems rather odd to me, as I never took him for a utilitarian. Who cares that the March doesn't directly lead to the overturning of Roe v Wade, it's an opportunity for those devoted to the protection of the unborn to gather and show their numbers every year.

Maybe I misread him, but I think his point was this: we argue, rightly, that the nature and scale of abortion puts it on par with evils like chattel slavery and the Holocaust. But that's difficult to square with the movement focusing on mundane political action, like an annual march, while cheerfully continuing to support Republicans at the federal level (who regularly refuse to take any sort of action on this issue), stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, and otherwise pretend ours is a normal political order. Brandon McGinley makes a similar point in this thread:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">American civilization has been marked by accomplishments that will go down as some of the most remarkable in human history. First, there is simply the longevity of this largely free and democratic regime, which is unprecedented in the modern world.</p>— Brandon McGinley (@brandonmcg) <a href="https://twitter.com/brandonmcg/status/954399306089459712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It's not that the March for Life is a bad thing; just that it can seem like a farcically tame response given the scale of the evil it looks to oppose. Can you imagine an alternate timeline where an annual March Against the Holocaust took place in DC to protest a Nazi-occupied Europe?

The equivocation is ridiculous, and is not too out of line with what I've read from him. Walther has made his thoughts on America rather plain, and so it does not surprise me that he compares our nation unfavorably with the great tyrannies of the 20th century. He's not wrong that the number of aborted children are terribly difficult to comprehend, but to compare our nation to Nazi Germany or Maoist China seems, to put it charitably, a stretch. His whole tone towards everything wears thin on me, though of course it's fun to read his articles blasting on a topic I also find crazy (like his Democrat piece), but his snark reads more like he lacks a single charitable bone in his body.

I enjoy him because he's a ferocious Catholic who writes with an elegant and very sharp pen, much like Evelyn Waugh. But I can definitely see how his style might grate on those who don't share his outlook.

I'm almost definitely wrong on this, as I know he's a devoted father, but I suspect he's also a Wolverine. So we may need to reconsider whether his articles should be welcome on this site.

He is indeed a Michigan fan. Nobody's perfect!

 

[zelezo vlk]

Maybe I misread him, but I think his point was this: we argue, rightly, that the nature and scale of abortion puts it on par with evils like chattel slavery and the Holocaust. But that's difficult to square with the movement focusing on mundane political action, like an annual march, while cheerfully continuing to support Republicans at the federal level (who regularly refuse to take any sort of action on this issue), stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, and otherwise pretend ours a normal political order. Brandon McGinley makes a similar point in this thread:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">American civilization has been marked by accomplishments that will go down as some of the most remarkable in human history. First, there is simply the longevity of this largely free and democratic regime, which is unprecedented in the modern world.</p>— Brandon McGinley (@brandonmcg) <a href="https://twitter.com/brandonmcg/status/954399306089459712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It's not that the March for Life is a bad thing; just that it can seem like a farcically tame response given the scale of the evil it looks to oppose. Can you imagine an annual March Against the Holocaust?



I enjoy him because he's a ferocious Catholic who writes with an elegant and very sharp pen, much like Evelyn Waugh. But I can definitely see how his style might grate on those who don't share his outlook.

If that was Walther's point, then it was lost on me as I am too colored by his previous writing.

Sharp pens don't bother me, but the truth is what cuts, not snarky sarcastic snobbish tone of writing. Perhaps Walther shares that with Waugh, as I've only read Brideshead and most of Scoop. But at least in Waugh's writing one can tell that he actually takes cheer in something. Also, anyone quickly makes an enemy of me when they say Steinbeck is not worth reading.

He is indeed a Michigan fan. Nobody's perfect!

Whiskey my friend, we must not tolerate evil.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Imagine if the time, money, effort spent on the March or other Right To Life efforts and was instead used for sex education and contraceptives. Could get that number down even further.

It'll never be zero, regardless of the legality.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Imagine if the time, money, effort spent on the March or other Right To Life efforts and was instead used for sex education and contraceptives. Could get that number down even further.

"Imagine if the time, money and effort spent on advancing abolitionist causes were instead invested in STEM. Could really decrease the need for slave labor!"

It'll never be zero, regardless of the legality.

You could make that argument for any crime--murder, theft, rape, etc.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You could make that argument for any crime--murder, theft, rape, etc.

Absolutely. My point is one would need to find the illegal abortion rate in, say, 1960, and use that as a bottom figure to see how close the country is to it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Absolutely. My point is one would need to find the illegal abortion rate in, say, 1960, and use that as a bottom figure to see how close the country is to it.

Do we need to calculate the baseline rate of Jewish "liquidation" in north Europe prior to Hitler's Final Solution in order to decide whether it was right to condemn the Nazis? 60 million American children have been killed in utero since 1973. Whatever the pre-Roe rate was, it's ludicrous to argue that legalization has improved the things.

 

[wizards8507]

Absolutely. My point is one would need to find the illegal abortion rate in, say, 1960, and use that as a bottom figure to see how close the country is to it.

Even if legalization caused the rate to decrease, there's still no moral argument that it should be tolerated.

Hypothetical: If you knew with absolute certainty that legalizing rape would cause rapes to decline by 15%, do you think we should legalize rape? Of course not.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Even if legalization caused the rate to decrease, there's still no moral argument that it should be tolerated.

A 13-year old was raped by her father and carrying the fetus will likely kill her.

Hypothetical: If you knew with absolute certainty that legalizing rape would cause rapes to decline by 15%, do you think we should legalize rape? Of course not.

But definitions of abortions can vary, no? If the morning after pill abortion in your view? I don't consider that evil or immoral. You might. It's subjective.

I think late-term abortions are immoral and evil (health of mother aside), but 98.7% of abortions aren't that.

 

[wizards8507]

A 13-year old was raped by her father and carrying the fetus will likely kill her.

You don't get to murder one innocent person for the sake of preventing the murder of a different innocent person.

But definitions of abortions can vary, no?

Only on the very fringes of the debate. For example, even Catholic moral theologians are divided on the use of methotrexate to terminate ectopic pregnancies. In short, ectopic pregnancies occur when a fetus implants outside of the uterus. The fetus is rarely viable, and will often die on its own relatively quickly, but the remaining tissue churns out dangerous levels of hormones that can lead to rupturing. Options to remove the tissue include surgically removing the Fallopian tube (leading to 50% sterility for the mother) or using methotrexate to remove the tissue chemically. There are a number of complicating factors, including whether the fetus died on its own or is still developing in a way in which it will never be viable. Depending on a number of variables, the use of methotrexate could be an illicit direct abortion, an illicit indirect abortion, a licit indirect abortion, or, in the case of fetal death prior to treatment, not an abortion at all.

As you suggest with your 98.7% comment below, I think it's more useful to focus on "typical" cases and not on the fringes. Let's first talk about the most common reason for abortion, which is consensual sexual intercourse that leads to the conception of a fetus that the mother can't be bothered to carry to term.

If the morning after pill abortion in your view? I don't consider that evil or immoral. You might. It's subjective.

There are a number of different drugs out there, but assuming you mean the type of emergency contraception that prevents conception, no. I consider it immoral but it's not abortion. I would put into a similar category as pornography.

I think late-term abortions are immoral and evil (health of mother aside), but 98.7% of abortions aren't that.

You started this post by citing a 13 year old incest victim and now you want to lecture me about the statistical preponderance of abortions? If late-term abortions are irrelevant because they're rare, teenage incest has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You don't get to murder one innocent person for the sake of preventing the murder of a different innocent person.

Oh boy. Clearly on the fringe by denying abortion rights to the trifecta of incestual rape that threatens the life of the mother.

As you suggest with your 98.7% comment below, I think it's more useful to focus on "typical" cases and not on the fringes. Let's first talk about the most common reason for abortion, which is consensual sexual intercourse that leads to the conception of a fetus that the mother can't be bothered to carry to term.

Given that about 2/3 of abortions are <8 weeks into the pregnancy, a fetus is about the size of a lentil or a raspberry. Plenty of people have trouble agreeing that termination at that stage is amounting to murder, which is why the issue quickly gets complicated.

I'm with the anti-abortion crowd on third trimester abortions (health reasons excluded), but I have difficulty saying the first-trimester abortions are a modern genocide.

There are a number of different drugs out there, but assuming you mean the type of emergency contraception that prevents conception, no. I consider it immoral but it's not abortion. I would put into a similar category as pornography.

You wouldn't consider it abortion. What is the stance of the various Right to Lifers? If life begins at conception and ending the pregnancy afterward isn't abortion, then the issue quickly becomes gray, no?

You started this post by citing a 13 year old incest victim and now you want to lecture me about the statistical preponderance of abortions? If late-term abortions are irrelevant because they're rare, teenage incest has nothing to do with anything.

You said there was no moral argument.

 

[Bluto]

The Week's Matthew Walther just published an article titled "The Democratic Party is the least cool thing on the planet":

Man, that piece is a spot on takedown.

 

[irishff1014]

Just think about this for a minute the next wave of voters are eating laundry detergent pods. Being stupid is a dangerous thing!

 

[NorthDakota]

Oh boy. Clearly on the fringe by denying abortion rights to the trifecta of incestual rape that threatens the life of the mother.

Given that about 2/3 of abortions are <8 weeks into the pregnancy, a fetus is about the size of a lentil or a raspberry. Plenty of people have trouble agreeing that termination at that stage is amounting to murder, which is why the issue quickly gets complicated.

I'm with the anti-abortion crowd on third trimester abortions (health reasons excluded), but I have difficulty saying the first-trimester abortions are a modern genocide.



You wouldn't consider it abortion. What is the stance of the various Right to Lifers? If life begins at conception and ending the pregnancy afterward isn't abortion, then the issue quickly becomes gray, no?



You said there was no moral argument.

My understanding of the Plan B pill was that it was supposed to prevent conception, not terminate a pregnancy. I could be wrong though. I believe there are abortion pills out there as well, a girlfriend's roommate took one once and got sick as a dog for a few days.

 

[Irish#1]

Those first six reasons all fall under the same "irresponsible/stupidity" classification. The first one in particular "Not old/mature enough to raise this child". With that decision, it's apparent they weren't old/mature enough to have sex in the first place.

 

[phgreek]

Long, but this resonated...the actual interview at 4:30 mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFn8YoTaMZo

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Senate Democrats Refuse To Grant Legal Status To Children Dreaming Of Being Born <a href="https://t.co/xyIPxzgEXb">https://t.co/xyIPxzgEXb</a> <a href="https://t.co/4pMTneQ3hx">pic.twitter.com/4pMTneQ3hx</a></p>— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/958127955162599424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

From The Babylon Bee:

“Frankly, I’m tired of the Republicans’ sob stories about these so-called ‘dreamers’ who are deliberately hiding inside a womb, hoping for government protection without going through the proper channels,” a DNC spokesperson told reporters. “Maybe it’s not their fault their parents brought them into this world, but that does not give them the same Constitutional right to life that hardworking, natural-born Americans have earned.”

Sources confirm Democrats may consider an abortion ban after 24 weeks, since the unborn child would be three-fifths of the way through a typical 40-week pregnancy by that point. “I really admire the idea of a 3/5 compromise,” said one Democrat senator. “America has used the 3/5 compromise before, when we were forced to admit that people who are property are still partially human. It worked really well.”

 

[NorthDakota]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Senate Democrats Refuse To Grant Legal Status To Children Dreaming Of Being Born <a href="https://t.co/xyIPxzgEXb">https://t.co/xyIPxzgEXb</a> <a href="https://t.co/4pMTneQ3hx">pic.twitter.com/4pMTneQ3hx</a></p>— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/958127955162599424?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Roasted.

 

[ulukinatme]

Grammys ratings plummet following politically charged night | Fox News

Before the cries of #FakeNews left leaning Variety reported the same and the comments were entertaining:

TV Ratings: Grammy Awards Shed Nearly 10 Million Viewers From 2017 – Variety

 

[ACamp1900]

Grammys ratings plummet following politically charged night | Fox News

Before the cries of #FakeNews left leaning Variety reported the same and the comments were entertaining:

TV Ratings: Grammy Awards Shed Nearly 10 Million Viewers From 2017 – Variety

I know this: I have a ton of people in my family/friends who won't watch this, the Oscars, SVU, Daily Show and a number of others shows etc over how bat shit crazy they are getting with politics. I haven't stopped watching anything, I've never watched the Grammys to begin with but it's very eye rolling how all in they are getting with everything. They do come off as a bunch of insulated, spoiled, crybabies...

 

[ulukinatme]

I know this: I have a ton of people in my family/friends who won't watch this, the Oscars, SVU, Daily Show and a number of others shows etc over how bat shit crazy they are getting with politics. I haven't stopped watching anything, I've never watched the Grammys to begin with but it's very eye rolling how all in they are getting with everything. They do come off as a bunch of insulated, spoiled, crybabies...

I honestly don't care for the marriage of entertainment and politics either. I don't care if it's right or left, Eastwood or Johansson, stick to what you do best. It tends to come off as batshit crazy when they try to jump up on a soapbox. If you want to get into politics, run for office.

 

[ickythump1225]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gK6LJffm_-c" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Great video. Jay Dyer is the man.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I honestly don't care for the marriage of entertainment and politics either. I don't care if it's right or left, Eastwood or Johansson, stick to what you do best. It tends to come off as batshit crazy when they try to jump up on a soapbox. If you want to get into politics, run for office.

Exactly. When I go to a concert, watch a TV show, or go to the movies, I want to be entertained, not preached to by somebody with a pretty face and double-digit IQ who is completely insulated from the real world.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I honestly don't care for the marriage of entertainment and politics either. I don't care if it's right or left, Eastwood or Johansson, stick to what you do best. It tends to come off as batshit crazy when they try to jump up on a soapbox. If you want to get into politics, run for office.

Music has always been political.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Grammys ratings plummet following politically charged night | Fox News

Before the cries of #FakeNews left leaning Variety reported the same and the comments were entertaining:

TV Ratings: Grammy Awards Shed Nearly 10 Million Viewers From 2017 – Variety

I never watch award shows, so they never had my eyes anyway lol.

But let me play devils advocate: There is a Trump supporting singer who gets MAJOR credit all over right wing media for wearing pro-Trump/pro-life dresses to the awards ceremonies. They go ape-shit over her. I read that you yourself don’t like when either side does it, but do Trump supporters NOT see the hypocricy in their statements? How can they abhor when the left makes political statements, but applaud when the right does it? How does that make any sense?

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn't the Grammy’s “political” statements about the “me too” movement? Shouldn’t we all be behind that? That shouldn’t be a left vs. right issue, even if lefties are driving it. But like I said, I didn’t watch and only saw headlines, so I could be wrong.

 

[NorthDakota]

I never watch award shows, so they never had my eyes anyway lol.

But let me play devils advocate: There is a Trump supporting singer who gets MAJOR credit all over right wing media for wearing pro-Trump/pro-life dresses to the awards ceremonies. They go ape-shit over her. I read that you yourself don’t like when either side does it, but do Trump supporters NOT see the hypocricy in their statements? How can they abhor when the left makes political statements, but applaud when the right does it? How does that make any sense?

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn't the Grammy’s “political” statements about the “me too” movement? Shouldn’t we all be behind that? That shouldn’t be a left vs. right issue, even if lefties are driving it. But like I said, I didn’t watch and only saw headlines, so I could be wrong.

I'm with you for the most part. I don't watch award shows. For movies, I may watch movies that get nominated/win "Best Picture" but that's about as close to it as I get. Not really my thing, but on the bright side, their viewership took a "yuuuuuge" hit this year.

I think Conservative people as a whole though, are less likely to get involved in that sort of thing. The Grammy's statements were not just the #MeToo bullshit, which has gotten downright dumb at this point(see Aziz) by the way.

 

[ickythump1225]

I never watch award shows, so they never had my eyes anyway lol.

But let me play devils advocate: There is a Trump supporting singer who gets MAJOR credit all over right wing media for wearing pro-Trump/pro-life dresses to the awards ceremonies. They go ape-shit over her. I read that you yourself don’t like when either side does it, but do Trump supporters NOT see the hypocricy in their statements? How can they abhor when the left makes political statements, but applaud when the right does it? How does that make any sense?

I'm with you on the never watching the Grammys or any award show. You're talking about Joy Villa. Here is honest opinion of Joy Villa: she was an irrelevant nobody who spotted an opportunity to game some fame and went for it. I don't trust her and don't think she actually supports #MAGA, but is using the movement as a way to leverage further sales and fame. Not knocking her, it's a smart hustle but it is what it is.

To play devil's advocate to you, I would say the difference between Joy Villa wearing a MAGA dress and some singer supporting Hillary is that (at least in Hollywood) it takes some level of courage to support Trump. Everyone in Hollywood is a liberal, you're not taking any risk by supporting abortion or a Democrat, it is literally the safest thing you can do in that town. You could, theoretically, be risking alienation and blacklisting by not supporting the right people.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn't the Grammy’s “political” statements about the “me too” movement? Shouldn’t we all be behind that? That shouldn’t be a left vs. right issue, even if lefties are driving it. But like I said, I didn’t watch and only saw headlines, so I could be wrong.

#MeToo by and large is a farce and bigger bullshit than BLM. All these women have been in the game for decades (well a lot of them anyways) and seen women abused forever and now when it is politically advantageous to do so they've found their voice? The legends of the "casting couch" go almost all the way back to beginnings of Hollywood and now these rich disingenuous white liberal women want to act like they're the civil rights movement of the 21st century? No, it's all self serving. If they cared they would have been blowing the whistle on guys like Weinstein 10 years ago.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Icky, you CLEARLY don’t understand what too many women have gone through because of Neanderthal men and the way they think/act. Men in power wielded that power and drowned out voices. Women DID speak out...they were called liars, sluts, etc etc. Sure, there will be opportunitists (agree, Dakota, on situations like Aziz, which was an embarrassment) but for a large majority, their speaking out has outed scores of pigs in industries all over the country.

The fact that the new Republican Party think that this is a bad thing, and a “farce” shows just how far the Party has fallen. I won’t even waste any more time trying to explain how this has been a GREAT thing for our wives, sisters, and daughters. Like I said, how this is a partisan issue is beyond me and a sad indictment on Trump supporters.

 

[ickythump1225]

Icky, you CLEARLY don’t understand what too many women have gone through because of Neanderthal men and the way they think/act. Men in power wielded that power and drowned out voices. Women DID speak out...they were called liars, sluts, etc etc. Sure, there will be opportunitists (agree, Dakota, on situations like Aziz, which was an embarrassment) but for a large majority, their speaking out has outed scores of pigs in industries all over the country.

The fact that the new Republican Party think that this is a bad thing, and a “farce” shows just how far the Party has fallen. I won’t even waste any more time trying to explain how this has been a GREAT thing for our wives, sisters, and daughters. Like I said, how this is a partisan issue is beyond me and a sad indictment on Trump supporters.

I actually agree with most of what Maher says here:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N1MZRowhMtc" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

My biggest issue with #MeToo is it has destroyed all distinction and degree. It also touts a perverted version of the justice system in which the accused is immediately assumed guilty and must prove his innocence (which is nigh impossible these days), exactly backwards of how it is supposed to work. Al Fraken, not a guy I care for, should NOT have been pressured into resigning for what was clearly a joke, yet he was castigated as if he was some rapist. Garrison Keillor loses his job for putting his hand on a woman's back. It's nuts. It is completely distorting the justice system and completely inverting the power structure.

We've entered into a new period of Puritanism with it all too. It is not enough for Keillor to be fired, MPR is now going back and trying to scrub him from the record as if he never existed. Even if Keillor did more than he claims and say...fondled a woman's breast, does he deserve to have his whole life destroyed and his legacy stricken from the record? What makes it more perplexing is a woman can consent in the moment and then retroactively say she didn't and still destroy a guy's career.

Legitimate rapists and sexual deviants should be dealt with, but that is why we have the court of law. Simple social flirtation and banter is now deemed "assault" and people lose their livelihoods over it.

 

[NorthDakota]

Icky, you CLEARLY don’t understand what too many women have gone through because of Neanderthal men and the way they think/act. Men in power wielded that power and drowned out voices. Women DID speak out...they were called liars, sluts, etc etc. Sure, there will be opportunitists (agree, Dakota, on situations like Aziz, which was an embarrassment) but for a large majority, their speaking out has outed scores of pigs in industries all over the country.

The fact that the new Republican Party think that this is a bad thing, and a “farce” shows just how far the Party has fallen. I won’t even waste any more time trying to explain how this has been a GREAT thing for our wives, sisters, and daughters. Like I said, how this is a partisan issue is beyond me and a sad indictment on Trump supporters.

I haven't met ANYONE who doesn't think women should speak out. I, along with pretty well everyone I've met while exclusively living in MEGA conservative areas, support women in calling rape and such out. A bunch of the complaints, as far as I am seeing, seem to be that you can attack a man for previous cases that very well may have not happened, or (as we agreed) stuff like Aziz.

I know I would hate to get railroaded by a girl who was upset I didn't call her back or some nonsense. I'm more than happy to call a dude out for being bad, I have sisters, anyone who does would love nothing more than to smash a rapey dude's head in.

TLR, It's not a farce, but it would be silly to accept all testimonials as truth. I think you clearly see that(as made clear by your view on Aziz), I think some folks could more clearly articulate their view on it.

 

[Irishize]

. Women DID speak out...they were called liars, sluts, etc etc

Yes, during the 1990s, I remember women like Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, etc speaking out. You are 100% correct....they were called liars, sluts, trailer trash, bimbos, etc by the likes of HRC, James Carville & Paul Begala. #MeToo