Archive for Liberal Snots

War on Women Watch

Huh?

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: The GOP’s right-wing clown car returned to DC today, it was full of familiar faces like the Senate’s #1 troublemaker Ted Cruz…

But at least one new passenger has arrived, Joni Ernst of Iowa, the castrator.

Clown car is fine, almost funny. But “castrator”? Sounds like somebody missed therapy this week. What is it with Democrat men? Tom Harkin called her a hottie, Matthews calls her a castrator.

Why not just call her Senator?

Comments (1)

The Face of Liberal Fascism

You can keep your doctor: Lie.

Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage: Truth.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

For a political group that claims to care so much, liberals sure have a low opinion of Americans—especially on the issue of health care. Zeke Emanuel wants us dead at 75, and Jonathan Gruber thinks we’re stupid.

He’s not wrong:

Gruber: … I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it.

When 34 states didn’t set up an exchange, Gruber changed his tune and insisted the law meant all along what he clearly stated it never meant to mean.

If this story gets any press (a huge, ginormous if), the White House will say “Jonathan who?”

This is who:

During 2009-2010 he served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the Administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Lately, he’s been about as visible a Claude Rains in a thick fog.

Comments

“Wife” is an “Evolving Paradigm”

We already knew marriage was an evolving paradigm. Now, it turns out that a wife of 29 years (and a mother of one’s children) isn’t a wife (but remains a mother):

Barely a week after being named the 17th richest member of Congress, liberal firebrand and Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson is refusing to support his estranged wife and their kids, and his wife has turned to government food stamps to support her family, WFTV 9 Orlando reports.

Grayson’s marriage of 29 years dissolved earlier this year when his wife, Lolita Grayson, filed for divorce. A week later, Rep. Grayson asked a court to annul the marriage on the basis of bigamy.

Mr. Grayson is refusing to support his family because he is claiming that she was never divorced from her first husband and therefore their marriage was never legitimate.

He’s got a point. Imagine losing 29 years of your life—having children, a home, a soulmate—to a fraud. I’d leave the bitch (and our bastard children) too.

Seriously (for a moment), You spent more than a third of your allotted years with this woman. I get divorce—but annulment? Child abandonment?

Mrs. Grayson told WFTV 9 Orlando she never thought she would be on food stamps or have her kids on the school lunch, because her husband was “the sole provider,” she said. “I don’t have any money at all. He’s been holding all our money for years and years.”

The congressman’s lawyers dismiss the claim saying that she is abusing public funds, saying that he is still paying the mortgage and phone bills. They are calling it an Election Day ploy to hurt him in the polls.

Despite these claims, Lolita Grayson maintains that the house is in disrepair with mold. “I’m doing this for me and our children, not for him, because I would like to have a good life again,” she concluded.

A reporter from WFTV confirmed the septic tank was leaking in the front of the house and the house was covered in mold.

Women will still vote for Grayson. He still supports abortion, even if he doesn’t support his children.

Comments (1)

The E-Word

It’s the new N-word:

Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person to die of Ebola in the United States, was not the right kind of victim for the west: he wasn’t a pretty young woman smiling in sunglasses as a Cavalier King Charles spaniel named Bentley licks her cheek; he didn’t have a young, benevolent doctor’s face that looks “appropriate” plastered on newspapers; he wasn’t a kindly older nurse who told reporters how God had spared her. He wasn’t the kind of person to whom primetime news specials would dedicate 20 minutes and glorify with quotes from loved ones about his kind spirit or ceaseless determination to overcome an unfair affliction.

Thomas Eric Duncan was black, he was poor, and he was African.

That he was.

Oops! My bad. That’s George Obama. Honest mistake. The list of poor black Africans betrayed by the West is virtually endless.

Note how the writer didn’t say he was the first American to die of Ebola. There have been plenty of those already: saintly souls who’ve risked their lives to help the sick and needy. Risked them and lost them. And Duncan certainly wasn’t the first African to die of the disease. He finished somewhere in the 4,000s, I believe. And Duncan wasn’t American.

No, he happened to be in the statistically unique position to be the first person to die of a disease endemic to Africa in the geographic proximity of the United States (as many of us feel about Texas).

Well, it had to be somebody. And it was likely (given all the above) that it would be a poor, black African.

And being the first, is it any wonder he was first misdiagnosed? Even if he hadn’t lied to get here, hadn’t shamed his country (according to the president of the country) by spreading the disease to a new continent, he would still likely have been misdiagnosed. Why would Dallas know Ebola even when it was staring them in the face?

But what do I know?

(CNN) — The tragedy of Ebola is not just its staggering toll. It’s also the implicit racism that the deadly virus has spawned. The anecdotes are sickening, particularly a Reuters report this week that children of African immigrants in Dallas — little ones with no connection to Thomas Duncan, the Liberian Ebola patient who died Wednesday in a local hospital — have been branded “Ebola kids” simply because of their heritage or skin color.

In both the United States and Europe, Ebola is increasing racial profiling and reviving imagery of the “Dark Continent.” The disease is persistently portrayed as West African, or African, or from countries in a part of the world that is racially black, even though nothing medically differentiates the vulnerability of any race to Ebola.

Duh! People know you don’t have to be black to get Ebola. That’s why people are scared.

But Ebola is African. It’s named after a river in the Congo. It seems to be tied to African fruit bats. Its outbreaks—until now—have been in Africa alone. Do Africans get gout?

We just go done with the canard that Republicans caused Ebola by cutting funding (ads declaring such have been pulled). Now, this.

We’re not too smart, I guess. Our response to a litany of threats and tragedies is limited to blaming ourselves. It gets old fast, if you ask me.

Comments (3)

Who Told?

It was supposed to be a secret!

Republicans Pave Way to All-White Future

In an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, [Sen. John McCain] said that, “I understand now, especially in my home state of Arizona, that these children coming, and now with the threat of ISIS … that we have to have a secure border.”

Follow that? Immigration reform, including the legalization of millions of immigrants already living in the U.S., is on hold because tens of thousands of Central American children have surrendered to border authorities. Also, because a sadistic army is killing people in Syria and Iraq. McCain, often a summer soldier when the forces of demagogy call, was perhaps too embarrassed to link Ebola to the new orthodoxy; of course, others already have.

Forgive us, for we have sinned. We thought that America could choose who came into this country. We believed America could screen the sick and the criminal. Whatever came over us?

“Secure the border” is an empty slogan and practical nightmare. But if you’re a conservative politician desperate to assuage (or exploit) what writer Steve Chapman calls the “deep anxieties” stirred by “brown migrants sneaking over from Mexico,” it’s an empty slogan with legs. It will be vastly easier for Republicans running in 2016 to shout “secure the border” than to defy the always anxious, politically-empowered Republican base.

He knows us so well—it’s almost like he’s in our minds!

Secure the border? What rot! Brown migrants? Ick! Always anxious? What makes you say that? Huh? What?

[T]he path of least resistance — and it has been many years since national Republicans have taken a different route — will be to continue reassuring the base while alienating brown voters. (After six years in which Republicans’ highest priority has been destruction of the nation’s first black president, it’s doubtful black voters will be persuadable anytime soon.) The party’s whole diversity gambit goes out the window. The White Album plays in perpetuity on Republican turntables.

That would be a significant problem if it resulted only in the marginalization and regionalization of the nation’s conservative party. But a racial hunkering down in an increasingly multi-racial nation will not be a passive or benign act. Pressed to the demographic wall, Republicans will be fighting to win every white vote, not always in the most high-minded manner. Democrats, likewise, will have a powerful incentive to question the motives and consequences of their opponents’ racial solidarity.

Immigration has always been about more than race.

Finally, he got something right. Immigration—illegal immigration—is about illegality. It’s about violating our borders (an act that gets you shot in many countries); it’s about violating our visas (which gets you thrown into jail and then deported,if you’re lucky, in many countries); it’s about forging documents and claiming benefits and evading taxes (which gets you enrolled in the Democrat Party in this country); it’s about illness, illiteracy, illogic, and, again, illegality.

By all means, give us “comprehensive immigration reform”, even if you aren’t going to like what it means to us.

PS: Just like President Obama, this guy seems awfully concerned with the welfare of the Republican Party. If we’ve already written off blacks (according to him), and are in the process of writing off “browns”, why doesn’t he just keep quiet and let us self-destruct? Very curious.

Comments

MSNBC Update [UPDATED]

Since viewership of Tass-TV has fallen below Animal Planet’s, we’d like to help our brothers and sisters in the media by rescuing their lonely voices from obscurity.

Besides, they’re beginning to make sense (imminent unemployment has that effect).

Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: So we don’t need a tsar?

[Dr. Anthony] FAUSI: I don’t think so. We have good coordination from the White House, from the National Security Council.

MATTHEWS: My concern is that this reminds me of the rollout for healthcare. The lack of a clear-cut personage, that the president could say, this person is in charge. When he was asked who was in charge of the rollout for health care, he said well it’s the person who is COO of the CAA of the HHS — someone he apparently never even met, that’s a problem.

Comparing the CDC to Healthcare.gov is a low blow, even for you, Chris.

Rachel Maddow:

MADDOW: Now that he’s out and working for a global strategy firm that’s essentially the Hillary Clinton campaign in exile, now he’s flying the same exact anti-Obama flag that the hawkish Clinton wing of the party has been flying all year trying to position themselves for the next stage in their own political careers by stepping on President Obama’s neck.

On that, Maddow sounds exactly Rush Limbaugh, who suggested last week that Panetta’s book marks a pivot away from the past (Obama) and toward the future (?), Hillary.

Joe Scarborough:

Joe Scarborough and the “Morning Joe” panel react to Alison Lundergan Grimes’ “ridiculous” answer to her voting history.

“That is so ridiculous,” Scarborough said. “And yet she told everybody she voted for Hillary Clinton. So why did you violate your ‘constitutional right’ then?”

I don’t watch news on the TV, but I can’t imagine Fox News being this tough on Democrats. As I say, losing one’s job can have that effect.

PS: C’mon MSNBC, it helps if you try:

A well-placed source tells me MSNBC will be announcing major programming changes sometime in the next month, including the cancellation of Ronan Farrow‘s afternoon program, Ronan Farrow Daily.

Mr. Farrow’s program — which now averages around just 50,000 viewers in the key 25-54 demo — has never performed well despite the hype that originally preceded it last February before its first airing. In the third quarter of this year, the show is down 51 percent from what occupied its 1:00 PM EST time slot a year ago (Andrea Mitchell Reports).

[I]n February of this year, Griffin gives Farrow — who hadn’t even hosted a community access show before — his own program. The plan was to bring in a younger audience, so why not put him at 1:00 p.m. ET when just a shade over zero of Millennials are actually watching TV?

Griffin also placed Chris Hayes — who hosted a wonky, deep-dive-into-policy weekend morning program (Up with Chris Hayes) — into the most important timeslot on any network: 8:00 p.m. weeknights. Put politics and ideology aside and go back to the Lombardi quote on scorekeeping: The awkward Hayes has trouble breaking 100 in the demo lately, and this is during an election year with Senate control in the balance. For context, Bill O’Reilly did 556 on the last show he hosted. Anderson Cooper on CNN: 282. Hayes: 104. The following night (Thursday, October 9), Hayes dropped to a 75.

Whether an even-lower-rated host (Ed Schultz, for example, who is getting beat anywhere from 5-to-1 to 9-to-1 by Fox in the demo at 5:00 PM) is also a cancellation candidate isn’t known right now. What is clear is the score these days: According to Bill Carter of the New York Times in a damning piece over the weekend, “In the first quarter of 2009, MSNBC averaged 392,000 viewers in the 25-54 demographic for its weeknight lineup. In the third quarter of this year, the number is down to 125,000.”

Maybe MSNBC should hire Al Gore to facilitate a sale. ISIS-TV is looking to make a buy.

UPDATED
Someone didn’t get the memo:

Earlier today, Alex Griswold told you about Wendy Davis doubling down on her campaign-imploding “Look at the cripple” ad. Or tripling down, or quadrupling down, or however many times it’s been at this point. She told Andrea Mitchell that the ad was “fair.” Oh, and Abbott is “working to kick that ladder down.” Well said, Wendy.

But believe it or not, Mitchell said something even dumber. At about the 1:00 mark in the above video, she emitted this brainfart:

“Could you have gone after what you see as his hypocrisy by pointing out what he did in that rape case, what he did in these other cases, without the stark image of the empty wheelchair, which seemed to be trying to point people towards his own supposed disability?”

Comments

Hating on the Handicapped

What is it with Democrats and the disabled?

Wendy Davis is almost certainly not going to be the next governor of Texas. Apparently, though, she’s willing to try just about anything to alter that reality.

“A tree fell on Greg Abbott,” the narrator says. “He sued and got millions. Since then, he’s spent his career working against other victims.”

This ad is the sort of highly risky gambit you only see from a long-shot campaign. And, as often as not, these sorts of “Hail Marys” fail miserably.

I checked. Abbott is leading by at least 10 points in the polls. Ms. Davis is a fetching woman, with shapely legs that look nice in pink sneakers. Her footwear and and her abortion are chief claims to fame. Or infamy. Now we can add this.

You remember the other occasion a Democrat screwed up over a person in a wheelchair:

Never gets old.

At least Biden meant no harm. Unlike…well, you just have to see:

You’re one to talk:

What do you expect from the modern progressive? They even celebrate the death of a person in a wheelchair at the hands of Arab terrorists.

Comments (1)

Girls Gone Defiled

The debate over abortion is complicated by two undeniable rights: the right to life and the right of a woman to control her own body.

We right-to-lifers (well, this right-to-lifer anyway) weigh the arguments, and come down on the side of the feminists who demand that abortion be safe, legal, and rare. Abortion will continue, but with restrictions. That seems to us (me) the only solution that honors both rights (or dishonors them equally). Does the right-to-terminate crowd make the same intellectual efforts at compromise of the uncompromisable?

You tell me:

If you would like to be filled with despair for the prospects of democracy, spend a few minutes attempting to decipher the psephological musings of Lena Dunham, the distinctly unappealing actress commissioned by Planned Parenthood to share with her presumably illiterate following “5 Reasons Why I Vote (and You Should, Too).” That’s 21st-century U.S. politics in miniature: a half-assed listicle penned by a half-bright celebrity and published by a gang of abortion profiteers.

You think that’s strong? Grab your Ray-Bans (with UVA and UVB protection):

A people mature enough to manage the relationship between procreative input and procreative output without recourse to the surgical dismemberment of living human organisms probably would not find much of interest in the work of Miss Dunham. But we are a nation of adult children so horrified by the prospect of actual children that we put one in five of them to death for such excellent reasons as the desire to fit nicely into a prom dress.

It’s not for nothing that, on the precipice of 30, Miss Dunham is famous for a television series called Girls rather than one called Women. She might have gone one better and called it Thumbsuckers. (The more appropriate title Diapers would terrify her demographic.)

I’m of a generation that went to college with women. If you referred to an 18 year-old coed as a girl, and you had your balls scorched with a blow torch. (Refer to her as a coed and you got away with a warning kick in said scrotum.) One learned to adjust, and those lessons stayed with one for a lifetime.

Have I lived too long?

Miss Dunham and likeminded celebrities think of voting in terms of their sex lives. Miss Dunham, in an earlier endorsement of Barack Obama, compared voting in the presidential election to losing one’s virginity — you want it to be someone special.

“I wore fishnets and a little black dress to vote,” she writes, “then walked around with a spring in my slinky step. It lasted for days. I can summon it when I’m blue. It’s more effective than exercise or ecstasy or cheesecake.” And that of course is the highest purpose of our ancient constitutional order: to provide adult children with pleasures exceeding those of cheesecake or empathogenic phenethylamines.

Miss Dunham’s “all about me!” attitude toward the process of voting inevitably extends to the content of what she votes for, which is, in her telling, mostly about her sex life. Hammering down hard on the Caps Lock key, she writes: “The crazy and depressing truth is that there are people running for office right now who could actually affect your life. PARTICULARLY your sex life. PARTICULARLY if you’re a woman. Yup.”

Yup? Nope.

Those of us who have been working against various mandates imposed by the Affordable Care Act are as a matter of fact attempting to extricate ourselves from involvement in Lena Dunham’s sex life, the details of which we would gratefully leave to her own idiosyncratic management. It is the so-called Affordable Care Act that has involved us in subsidizing birth control, abortifacients, surgical abortions, and who knows what else, for the strong, powerful, self-actualized American woman who cannot figure out how to walk into Walgreens, lay down the price of a latte, and walk out with her own birth-control pills, no federal intervention necessary. The very conservative editors of this magazine are in fact trying to make it easier for them to do so with over-the-counter birth control. I suspect that Miss Dunham does not know very many conservatives, so allow me to pass along the message: We really, truly, sincerely do not wish to be involved in your sex life.

Are you listening Sandra Fluke? (Very doubtful.)

I followed my feminist instructions in no small part because I wanted to get into their feminist pants. As some of my much-desired prey would be grandmothers by now, I am more inclined to be swayed by if not Ms. Dunham, at least some of her castmates:

Yet I am not. Juvenile behavior is never sexy, no matter how “easy” it may be.

Comments (1)

Hosanna Montana

Remember Todd Akin? Neither do we, but evidently he was a towering figure in the Republican Party. Every Republican in the country, from presidential hopeful to candidate for dog catcher, was obliged to answer for some ignorant comment he made about rape. He must have been really important.

Almost as important as Amanda Curtis:

Meet Democrat Amanda Curtis. She took over as the Democrat Senate candidate in Montana after Democrat John Walsh disgraced himself by cheating on his Army War College thesis (As an actual Army War College graduate, I’d like to say, “Thanks for that, Johnny – those of us who did the hard work to actually earn our masters degrees really appreciate you devaluing it.”) Now Democrat Amanda Curtis is running as a free-spirited progressive, unconstrained by things like class and dignity and the concerns of her constituents.

[U]nlike the goofy womyn’s studies majors we laughed at back in school, we can’t just ignore her. Nor, try as they might, can her fellow Democrat Senate candidates.

Democrat Mark Begich, where do you stand on Democrat Amanda Curtis’s attack on women’s right to be free of sexual assault? Do you consider women’s safety an appropriate topic of humor? Do you stand with the right of Alaskan women to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves from violent crime, or do you support a candidate from your Democrat Party who will vote with the rest of the liberals in your Democrat Party to deprive women of that right?

Democrat Mark Pryor of Arkansas, where have you been as Democrat candidate Amanda Curtis was insulting and rolling her eyes at the mere mention of Christianity?

Democrat Mark Pryor, do you support your Democrat Party’s candidate when she thinks the religion that most of your constituents hold dear is a punchline?

Democrat Allison Lundergan Grimes of Kentucky, where do you stand on Democrat Amanda Curtis’s anti-Christian hate speech? Do you stand with the people Kentucky or with the liberal Democrat establishment in Washington, D.C.? Your silence is your answer.

Democrat Kay Hagan of North Carolina, why do you think it is okay for your fellow Democrat to make fun of Christians, and then to roll her beady eyes at the mere mention of the idea of family? Is that what you believe? Why do you want this woman in the Senate?

Democrat Michelle Nunn of Georgia, why aren’t you raising your voice against this kind of mindless progressive bigotry? You made a big deal of refusing to promise to vote for Democrat Harry Reid as majority leader, but in your first test you’ve chosen to tolerate the anti-Christian, anti-family hate of Democrat Amanda Curtis just because she’s in your Democrat Party.

Democrat Bruce Braley, be like Republican Joni Ernst and emulate the example of courage that this Army lieutenant colonel has displayed by standing up to your Democrat Party for its nomination of an anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-woman extremist.

Democrat Amanda Curtis is truly the Todd Akin of this election cycle, yet in contrast to the Republicans, who immediately repudiated Todd Akin’s bizarre biological misconceptions, the Democrats, by their silence, tacitly admit that they either support their Democrat Party over the people of their states or that they agree with Democrat Amanda Curtis’s radical and extreme agenda.

Why do you choose the Democrat Party over your people? The time is now to repudiate the anti-family, anti-Christian and anti-woman views of Democrat Amanda Curtis.

Todd Akin was just as irrelevant (or relevant) to the Republican Party as Amanda Curtis is (or isn’t) to the Democrats. I just wouldn’t want to be accused of not affording her equal treatment.

PS: The last poll from about two weeks ago had Curtis down by 20 points—too close for my liking.

Comments

Comforting the Comfortable

Many conservatives have come to realize that to win the contest of ideas, you have to compete on the field of culture. It does one no good to be right (as in correct) when Hollywood, academia, the media are all left (as in wrong).

They tell us so themselves:

At last, we know the reason why comedy writers don’t make fun of President Obama much.

It turns out the man is completely unmockable.

We learn this from Jim Downey, the longtime “Saturday Night Live” specialist in political japery. “If I had to describe Obama as a comedy project, I would say, ‘Degree of difficulty, 10 point 10,’” the writer says in the expanded new edition of the “SNL” oral history book, “Live from New York.”

“It’s like being a rock climber looking up at a thousand-foot-high face of solid obsidian, polished and oiled,” Downey says. “There’s not a single thing to grab onto — certainly not a flaw or hook that you can caricature. [Al] Gore had these ‘handles,’ so did Bush, and Sarah Palin, and even Hillary had them. But with Obama, it was the phenomenon — less about him and more about the effect he had on other people and the way he changed their behavior. So that’s the way I wrote him.”

Got that? The charter Choom Ganger, confessed eater of dog and snorter of coke. The doofus who thinks the language spoken by Austrians is “Austrian,” that you pronounce the p in “corpsman” and that ATMs are the reason why job growth is sluggish. The egomaniac who gave the queen of England an iPod loaded with his own speeches and said he was better at everything than the people who work for him. The empty suit with so little real-world knowledge that he referred to his brief stint working for an ordinary profit-seeking company as time “behind enemy lines.” The phony who tells everyone he’s from Chicago, though he didn’t live there until his 20s, and lets you know that he’s talking to people he believes to be stupid by droppin’ his g’s. The world-saving Kal-El from a distant solar system who told us he’d heal the planet and cause the oceans to stop rising. The guy who shared a middle name with one of the most hated dictators on earth.

Nope, nothing there to mock. No way to get a grip on this polished, oiled obsidian. So comedy writers didn’t and mostly still don’t.

In a new book, “Politics Is a Joke!” three academics tabulated 100,000 jokes told by late-night comics over the last 20 years. They found that in 2008 only 6% of the jokes were about Obama (Palin attracted nearly as many jokes in four months as a public figure as he did all year). And those jokes had a tendency to be about as barbed as cotton candy. Example cited by Tevi Troy in The Wall Street Journal: Jon Stewart said Obama visited Bethlehem so he could see “the manger where he was born.”

In every presidential campaign since 1992, the researchers found, comedians aimed more jokes at Republicans than they did at Democrats. Overall, twice as many barbs flew at the GOP.

“Our job is, whoever is in power, we’re opposed,” “SNL” chief Lorne Michaels told The New York Times in 2008.

And 2008 is when that policy ended.

Anyone who cares deeply about a story—say, the way we do about Israel—sees the distortions in the media and the culture at large. We often despair. Obama, global warming, big government, race—we see (and share with you) report after report, story after story highlighting the misconceptions and hypocrisies in the coverage in the media and culture, yet we feel like we get nowhere.

To many young Americans, Jon Stewart is their John Chancellor, and Tina Fey is their Sarah Palin.

Speaking of whom, who says Obama isn’t comedy gold?

Comments

Fetus…Baby…Whatever You Call It…

Don’t call it “difficult”:

Planned Parenthood calls abortion “a difficult decision” in many of its consent forms and fact sheets. When NARAL launched a film on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 2013, the president of the pro-choice organization called abortion “a difficult decision” women and couples face.

Lawmakers use the adjective, too. “It was a difficult, difficult decision, but it was the right one,” Nevada Assemblywoman Lucy Flores said last month in defending her choice to have an abortion at age 16. In 2005, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton described the decision to have an abortion as “one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul-searching decisions a woman and a family can make” and “often the most difficult [decision] that a woman will ever make.”

However, when the pro-choice community frames abortion as a difficult decision, it implies that women need help deciding, which opens the door to paternalistic and demeaning “informed consent” laws. It also stigmatizes abortion and the women who need it.

Often, abortion isn’t a difficult decision. In my case, it sure wasn’t.

Good for her. I’m glad it was a piece of cake. Easy-peasy. A snap. (Or was that the baby’s spine?)

Who needs the agro?

Today, when advocates on both sides of the debate talk about the decision to have an abortion, they preface their statements with adjectives such as “difficult,” “hard” or “reluctant.” For anti-abortion conservatives, the reason for using such language is clear: Abortion is murder, they contend, but characterizing a woman who has one as a murderer is a bit, well, harsh. A more charitable view is to assume that she must have struggled with making this immoral choice. Pro-choice advocates use the “difficult decision” formulation for a similar reason, so as not to demonize women. It also permits pro-choice candidates to look less dogmatic.

But there’s a more pernicious result when pro-choice advocates use such language: It is a tacit acknowledgment that terminating a pregnancy is a moral issue requiring an ethical debate. To say that deciding to have an abortion is a “hard choice” implies a debate about whether the fetus should live, thereby endowing it with a status of being. It puts the focus on the fetus rather than the woman.

And we can’t have that! The “status of a being”? Piffle!

If the fetus is not a being (as if!), she doesn’t tell us what it is instead. I’d kind of like to know.

Not only is abortion not a difficult choice, it’s not even a choice:

Abortion rights groups are struggling to expand their message from “pro-choice” — which they say no longer resonates with voters as it once did — to more broadly encompass women’s health and economic concerns. The movement needs such recalibration precisely because it was drawn into a moral debate about the fetus’s hypothetical future rather than the woman’s immediate and tangible future. Once these groups locked themselves into a discussion of “choice,” terminating a pregnancy became an option rather than a necessity. Pro-choice groups would be a lot stronger, more effective and more in sync with the women they represent if they backed away from the defensive “difficult decision” posture.

Option, shmoption—get busy abortin’ or get busy buyin’…diapers.

There’s not all that much room between me and the pro-choice crowd. I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare, just as they do. The only difference is I mean it. The “pro-neccessity” crowd does not.

Comments

[Bleep] Liberals Say

Aggie wrote this comment to a post below:

Yesterday, one of the low information crowd told me, quite seriously, that the Tea Party was an outgrowth of Occupy Wall Street. Can you believe that?

I can, Aggie, because I hear [bleep] like that all the time. It’s time to start a column of it.

Yesterday:

I was killing time in Cambridge and overheard two students at a language school waiting for their class to start. One was local, and worked in web design for politics. The other was from out of town, but noted that Massachusetts was a pretty blue state, that the politics must be left wing. The local one assured him that was so, and added “I hate Republicans.” The second one responded “I can’t imagine a Republican learning Portuguese.” They continued in like-minded palaver until their class started.

Why would a Republican not take Portuguese? Why would a Democrat? Is there a hidden logic to that statement? People learn Portuguese only to hit on hot Brazilian chicks. Can’t Republicans fantasize about Shakira?

But it was the “I hate Republicans” line that I really should address.

Now, we all use “love” and “hate” liberally (pardon the pun): We “love” pickles, but “hate” relish; love Sandra Bullock, hate Maggie Gyll…Gylen…you know the one I mean. The one everyone hates.

But “hate” Republicans? How many does this person know? There aren’t that many of us around here—which is why she felt so free to speak of us that way. What are the odds, as the other person observed, that one would be loitering outside a Portuguese language class? Or loitering anywhere other than near a Catholic girls’ school or a highway rest stop? It’s a safe hatred, a comfortable hatred, a without-fear-of-contradiction hatred. Aren’t those the most dangerous kind?

The Governor is a Democrat. The Mayor (of Boston) is a Democrat. Both Senators are Democrats, as are all nine Congressmen (it used to be ten until we mercifully lost one to redistricting). There are only four Republicans in the 40-member State Senate, and 30 out of 160 members of the State House. Shouldn’t Republicans in Massachusetts be pitied rather than hated?

Except for the threat (and reality) of violence, Republicans in liberal strongholds are like blacks in the Jim Crow South. Despised, resented, under-(or un-)represented, misrepresented—if our politics were as readily apparent as the dark skin of African Americans, we would only have more such stories to tell, not fewer. But probably not the threat (or reality) of violence.

Move over, “It’s Unexpected!”™ and Dispatches From the Front Lines of Socialized Medicine, we have a new standing headline, [Bleep] Liberals Say.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »