"Sex is not the Enemy" - Garbage
Young Conor Friedersdorf may have moved to Venice California, but his head and his heart are still firmly planted in the media village we call DC. He has produced a perfect specimen (and I choose that term deliberately) of the classic village trope -- both sides are doing X and the truth is Y, which naturally falls into the middle of where the two sides are -- why can't we all be reasonable and cut out this extreme talk, all of which we really know is merely political posturing. In this case, Friedersdorf deems silly the Democratic contention that the Republicans are engaging in a war on women and, with the fine impartiality that makes the man a future Sunday television show guest, condemns as well the Republican outrage over the Democrats alleged disrespect for motherhood. Friedersdorf does not bother to distinguish between the fact that the latter is a manufactured outrage aimed at the infelicitous remarks of an obscure Washington PR flak, while the former is a political shorthand for something quite real, a concerted attempt on a national level by the Republican Party to undermine or eliminate women's reproductive rights.
Thus, in response to a perfectly factual attack on the Blunt Amendment by Deborah Wasserman Schultz in which she objected to "bosses" being able to decide "what kind of access to health care women can have," Friedersdorf asserts that
It's perfectly legitimate to criticize the Blunt-Rubio bill and to set forth reasons why its passage would be bad for women. What's objectionable is 1) the implication that the Republicans who voted for this bill are motivated by antagonism toward women and engaged in an aggressive campaign to war on them (the truthful motivation is some mix of concern for protecting religious liberty and pandering to religious conservatives and opponents of sweeping health-care mandates). 2) The sly invocation of the phrase "access to contraception," as if what's at issue here is the ability to buy condoms or birth control as opposed to a debate about who covers their cost.
Friedersdorf is guilty of multiple sins here. First, he is typical of the libertarian boys who think of access to contraception and abortion as frills -- things that are not really "health care." This is nonsense. There are few things more important in terms of women's overall health and their sexual and economic autonomy than the ability to control fertility. The ability to avoid or terminate unwanted pregnancies or to optimally space the birth of children goes right to the very heart of a women's life for a very long period of time.
Second, although he seeks to minimize it, Republicans have consistently fought over the last several years -- especially since 2010 -- with a venomous vehemence against access to birth control. Let us count the ways: The Blunt Amendment is only the most recent battle -- think about their concerted effort against Title X, which they seeks to defund in their budget, their war -- and I think that is the only appropriate term -- against Planned Parenthood on both the federal and state level, their efforts to offer expansive "conscience" clauses to pharmacists so that they don't have to dispense contraceptives if they don't want to, and their fight against making Plan B available as an over the counter drug.
Third, in addition to these concrete policy measures, Republicans, most visibly Rick Santorum, have expressed hostility to the very constitutional underpinnings that make access to contraception a constitutionally protected right as they attack the Griswold decision and the right to privacy. The undermining of Griswold and Roe v. Wade are central planks of Republican thinking, not some marginal tendency. All of these waiting period requirements and ultrasound laws are designed to effectively destroy the right of women to have abortions or, at a minimum, to cause inconvenience and humiliation to those who dare exercise that right.
And yet, Friedersdorf blithely asserts that
the life prospects of my fiance, my sister, my mother, and my female friends and acquaintances, I can only conclude that they're mostly unaffected by whether President Obama wins the White House or Mitt Romney manages to unseat him. Were my preferred candidate, Gary Johnson, to improbably be elected, Muslims, innocents accused of terrorism, and folks proximate to the drug trade would be better off. But I doubt he'd do much to make the lives of women appreciably better. It's one of the many privileges of living in this country: daily life goes on largely unaffected by the whims of the man or woman who inhabits the White House. Unlike in Saudi Arabia or Iran, women as a class aren't vulnerable to gendered oppression.
Spoken like a privileged, clueless, complacent, sheltered, glib white man. In case Friedersdorf hasn't noticed, the president has any number of powers that have real daily relevance to women's lives -- and yes, since women are the only ones who get pregnant, they are quite vulnerable to gendered oppression in this country. Indeed, the Republican Party seems dedicated to such oppression -- and no, the fact that there are women in the GOP like Jan Brewer who will joyfully go along with the oppression, does not make it any less oppressive. President Obama has drawn a line in the sand to protect Title X, his administration has fought measures to defund Planned Parenthood, and has sought to assure that family planning be a part of the basic health care services offered under all health plans in the United States. Most importantly of all, Obama has appointed two women to the Supreme Court who will assuredly uphold Roe v. Wade.
Romney, by contrast, has endorsed the Ryan budget, which will defund Title X, has enthusiastically claimed that he would "defund" Planned Parenthood, has indicated that he opposes the contraception mandate, and, in fact, would seek to repeal the Affordable Care Act altogether. And, of course, he will seek to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
If Friedersdorf thinks that these policy differences would leave most women "unaffected" he simply has no idea of the centrality of reproductive rights in women's lives. And that is a reflection, not of the trivialities of these issues, but of the callowness of Friedersdorf's world view.
there is an old war on moms -- you lose if you work outside the home, and you lose if you are stay-at-home. most women think if you can afford a choice, you should choose what works for you and your family.
other women think, what choice? as someone said a thread or 2 back (i think paula), there is not much of a choice if a mom needs to work to keep the family in shelter and some kind of food.
but i'm absolutely stunned at the extent to which there are efforts to cut off access to birth control as well as abortion. family planning has been constitutionally guaranteed for a long time, and has been considered necessary health care for a long time, and those decisions do not belong to politicians, or pharmacists.
excuse me, but condoms are pretty much it for birth control without a prescription -- and condoms only work if the guy is willing to use them, and they are not nearly as effective as other methods. prescriptions, one might recall, tend to be expensive if they are not covered by insurance.
it is not a small matter, whether one has access to birth control. the health risks to women of even a wanted pregnancy are considerable; why is this always ignored in these stupid arguments? i had complications with both my pregnancies. one of my lamaze classmates died of a complication; her daughter survived, but born quite prematurely by emergency c-section. (that was a fun class.) another friend's fetus died in utero, and for reasons i do not understand, she had to carry the dead baby until she went into natural labor -- you can imagine how great it was for her on the maternity ward. and so on.
why is it assumed that raising children, even if the child has health care, is without personal, financial, and other costs, even if the child is insured? i know great parents who absolutely could not bear and raise a child at particular times in their lives; great parents who were great because they had some control over timing. why is that bad?
Posted by: kathy a. | April 15, 2012 at 12:54 AM
SC - you are too generous, callowness implies a degree of ignorance. Those who advocate for these mysogynistic measures are not ignorant at all. They know full well that the consequences of their crusades, if successful, will impose upon all women; that greater than half majority who are less suseptible to utter bullshit.
What it comes down to in the simplest terms is that the right wing nut jobs want to make sure that any woman who happens to get impregnated through an act of pleasure and perhaps even bonding, must by law, carry such pregnancy to term because that happens to work nicely in terms of preventing such individuals from realizing any other potential. It binds them to the task of motherhood. Fatherhood enjoys a looser definition and is fungible, easily translated into child support payments whether they are made or not.
All to the purpose of providing an overabundance of willing labor, thusly to increase profits. One wonders, do the oligarchs think they can preside over a global population of slaves so passive that they will not revolt against being systematically impoverished?
Posted by: KN | April 15, 2012 at 01:15 AM
Teh_Derp is strong with this one.
I'm old enough to remember when you had to at least be able to report well enough to overcome one's own rarified environment before one got an opinion column for The Atlantic. Friedersdorf just pulled this out of his rectum, and it would be better for all concerned if he put it back where he found it.
Posted by: Lex | April 15, 2012 at 01:23 AM
I apologize to all for having not responded to comments in my thread on tax brackets, but I was busy Friday night and all of yesterday, and this morning I'm getting the "comments to this entry are closed" message. Locked out of my own thread - of all the indignities!
At any rate, in my experience that message doesn't always last, so hopefully I'll be able to get in later.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 15, 2012 at 07:33 AM
Conor:
Grrr. Argh.One of the privileges of being straight, white*, and comfortably upper middle class or better in this country is that daily life goes on largely unaffected by the whims of the man or woman who inhabits the White House.
There, fixed that.
Because people situated as I am ARE pretty much insulated from being materially affected by who's in the White House.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans, between liberals and conservatives, at this level of affluence, is that we recognize that not everyone has the sort of comfortable path through life that we do. If the ACA gets struck down, for instance, tens of millions of Americans will be without insurance. None of them will be people that Conor Friedersdorf knows, in all likelihood. To him, that seems to mean they either don't exist, or really didn't deserve to be insured anyway.
*Why not male? Maybe it belongs too; I just couldn't justify it myself, but am open to its inclusion. My thought was that well-off women won't rely on Title X or Planned Parenthood to afford contraceptives, and even if Roe is reversed, abortion will continue to be legal in some states. A well-off woman would have to deal with the inconvenience of a plane flight to Los Angeles or Chicago or D.C. if she needed an abortion; it's the women who can't scrape together the plane fare who would be forced to give birth to children they don't want and can't afford to raise.
Needless to say, those women don't exist in Conor's world either.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 15, 2012 at 01:35 PM
More Conor:
Who gives a fuck about motivation? When we went to war in Vietnam, we thought we were fighting for freedom. Tell me how much that mattered to the people we bombed, to those whose lives we either destroyed or ruined. Same thing in Iraq: in addition to the WMDs, we were supposedly rescuing the oppressed Iraqi people. Again, it doesn't matter to the hundreds of thousands who died, and the millions in exile.
The Republicans are conducting a war on women. I don't give a good goddamn whether they're conducting it out of high principle or because they're just a bunch of worthless fucknuggets. It's the same goddamned war, either way.
I especially don't care whether they're conducting this war based on some high principle because people, not principles, are what matter. Anyone who is going to do damage to the lives of real people because of abstract principles is a morally abhorrent creature who ought to be called out as the worthless scum they are, rather than being defended on those grounds.
But since libertarianism is all about putting principle ahead of people, I guess I can't expect Conor to go that route.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 15, 2012 at 01:59 PM
Great post Sir C. I'm finding all this not only insulting and absurd, but exhausting which I suppose is part of the plan. As for the women involved in these moves against people whose lives are none of their business -- darned unfathomable.
As for women's rights, Abigail would add both a request and a warning:
I'm with her.
Posted by: nancy | April 15, 2012 at 08:14 PM
more "for thee and thine, not me and mine" from mitt romney, who thinks poor mothers need to have the dignity of work outside the home.
and for women working outside the home, there are threats on the fairness front. some republicans consider the lilly ledbetter fair pay act to be a "nuisance" to business. i'll just bet -- if one wants to pay the ladies unfairly, by gum, the courts should just look the other way.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 15, 2012 at 08:17 PM
A bit of levity on the matter.
Posted by: nancy | April 15, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Who gives a fuck about motivation?
Republicans. When their policies destroy lives, they explain that they did it with the best of motives. Thus "abstinence education", which has troubling effects, is advocated because any other kind of sex-ed will give the appearance of acknowledging, and thus somehow condoning, active teenage sexuality.
"We must not appear to condone" is the Right's mantra, regardless of the actual effects of the resulting policies.
Posted by: joel hanes | April 16, 2012 at 12:05 AM
A bit of wishful thinking from Kathleen Parker:
Keep telling yourself that, hon.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 16, 2012 at 09:28 AM
Kathleen Parker has a strange understanding of the concept of "freedom of speech":
No. They have a right to express their opinions without fear of physical reprisals, threats, or intimidation, without being stalked or having people peer in through their windows. And I would contend that they have a moral right, if not a Constitutional right, to expect that things that are rightly in the private sphere of their lives will be left there.But that's as far as it goes, because the rest of us have free speech rights too. If we think their opinions are worthy of condemnation, we get to say so. And if something they say makes us angry, we have the right to express our opinions with words that convey our passion.
If Parker thinks the First Amendment means something different than this, perhaps the WaPo needs to give her a refresher course. Free speech is their business, at least in theory. (In practice, their business is harvesting Federal student loan money through bogus college courses, but it used to be free speech, and they should still remember something about how it works.)
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 16, 2012 at 09:54 AM
isn't the background to the rosen remark that romney said he wished his wife was present, because she's been talking to women and they say their #1 concern is not contraceptives but the economy?
so, there is relevance when most women -- even mothers -- have worked outside the home; most women deal directly with "the economy" because they must find jobs, pay bills, arrange child care, somehow feed, clothe, educate, and provide medical care for themselves and their families. mrs. romney has not had that experience.
if mrs. romney is going to be put out there as the campaign expert on women's issues, particularly economic issues, comparing her experience to that of most women is fair.
as SC suggests, coverage of contraception costs the employer/insurer nothing -- because preventing pregnancy saves a bundle of medical money -- but it's a significant economic (and personal health) issue to women wishing access to contraception.
if the insurance costs of attending to pregnancy are high, the costs of raising an unplanned child are astronomical. and for women on a tight budget, the costs of just the prescription can be unaffordable.
this is not some little side issue. and it is in fact an economic issue for the women sought to be excluded because of their employer's beliefs. (imagine if the bishops decided their religious liberty required employees of church-owned businesses to tithe? it's like that.)
Posted by: kathy a. | April 16, 2012 at 10:43 AM
>>f mrs. romney is going to be put out there as the campaign expert on women's issues, particularly economic issues, comparing her experience to that of most women is fair.
Really? Did you drop out the "not" in that sentence by mistake?
It doesn't sound to me like Ann Romney has ever had to work within a tight budget, but maybe the gain on family investments dipped when the market was way down. Like during those years when many of us lost 1/3 of our retirement savings. She might have had to cut back a smidgen on household expenses for her eight homes.
Kathy, thanks for pointing out the high costs associated with raising the fruit of an unplanned pregnancy. But, there's so much more to this issue than money. With all the moral ammo flying around, I'm waiting for someone to bring up moral issues associated with raising accidental children. I can tell you anecdotally that unplanned and unwanted children are at high risk for all types of physical and emotional problems. I'm sure Becky can point out quite a truckload.
Sorry to have been out of the loop on this important topic, but life has swept me away from the computer for a week or so. Also, I said just about all I have to say on the contraception issue on my blog a few weeks ago, when Rush dissed Sarah Fluke and that prompted a massive venting of my spleen.
We know the GOP has and always has had little respect for women, in general, and has viciously gone after high-visibility liberal women, including Hillary Clinton, long before she ran for presidential candidacy. What's important now is fending off attacks on our bodies from all sides, before we lose a lot of ground.
On the other hand, you might look at this point in history as a very loose parallel to the Civil Rights movement, when restrictions on rights helped forge large groups of people committed to the cause of protecting the rights of others. (The parallel does not hold up, however, when you consider the number of people who died trying to expand those rights.)
In this case, the GOP may have unwittingly offered women an opportunity to build unity between disparate demographics on the issue of women's rights over their own bodies. Don't forget, females currently are in the majority in the US adult population, in the workforce and in the voting booth. If we can keep our eyes facing forward, maybe we can push ahead so our daughters and granddaughters will not have to worry about losing control of reproduction.
Most of all, we need to stop reducing political benefits to simple cost-saving equations. We're talking about lives here, not grocery lists or comparison shopping.
Today on Twitter, Litbrit promoted a gem of an old post about a man's understanding of pregnancy here.
Posted by: Paula B | April 16, 2012 at 01:09 PM
paula -- i wasn't clear! i really meant "comparing and contrasting" her experiences -- not "equating" her experiences.
her experiences are not those of most other women. "chipping away" at the trust fund in order to be a stay-at-home mother while hubby was in school is not the kind of financial sacrifice that most women can ever contemplate. but it appears to be her example of financial stress.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 16, 2012 at 01:53 PM
My sense is that neither Mitt nor Ann Romney has the slightest clue about what most families' lives are liked, whether the family consists of a single breadwinner and stay home spouse, a two career couple, or a single parent.
This alone would not be disqualifying. We have had wealthy presidents with enormous levels of empathy for ordinary folks -- look at FDR and JFK for example, both of whom overcame their incredibly privileged upbringings to act as champions of the poor and the working class.
But neither Romney exudes any of that empathy.
As to the manner in which they value the labor of non-working parents, it is revelatory to see Mitt's support to send single women on welfare out to work, even if they had very young children at home because they needed "the dignity of work." For women of a certain class, parenting is the highest calling, and for others, it's an excuse to shirk.
I hate these fucking people.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 16, 2012 at 02:00 PM
heh, paula. litbrit's only talking about a regular pregnancy. some come with bonus complications!
mine only involved [a] a frank breech baby (first the efforts of multiple physicians working all possible angles -- that one, too -- to "change" the position), and then the c-section), and the [b] early bleeding and threat of miscarriage (when my beloved was away and my son was one year, so i ended up training my son to climb out of the playpen so i could limit lifting), followed some months later by early labor (a week in the hospital on major drugs before she was big enough) plus worries about pregnancy-induced diabetes. that was all fun. i'm leaving other things out.
but i was lucky lucky lucky. both my babies were wanted, and we had health care, and i wasn't trapped in a bad relationship or abandoned by the father. i didn't have a stillborn and have to carry it to "natural birth," like one friend. mine were not severely premature, like my own sister -- whose survival in 1965 was a miracle (2.5 lbs., they usually died then at that weight), but she has had some lifelong difficulties, like hearing loss. my sister has done fine; our first cousin, who suffered brain damage from a lack of oxygen during birth, has not done so well despite intensive efforts. i did not die of an amniotic fluid embolism, like one woman in my lamaze class -- yes, that happened. my children did not have major malformations or disabilities, like those of several friends.
every one of the complications i mentioned happened with a wanted pregnancy. these kinds of things happen in unwanted pregnancies, too. i'm mad as hell about a lot of things lately, including cutting services to families in need -- but trying to take away access to family planning, trying to dismiss pregnancy as some little sacrifice? i'm volcanic about that.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 16, 2012 at 03:07 PM
omigod, kathy! Yes, what's normal? And, you're among the healthy and lucky ones. Teens, malnourished women, physically abused women are more likely to have the problems you talk mention---low birth weight, prematurity, maternal complications and congenital defects. Unfortunately, those women are the ones most likely to be uninsured or insured through federal/state programs that are up for slashing by the GOP.
Posted by: Paula B | April 16, 2012 at 03:34 PM
Of course, no one would want to offend the sensitivities of the extremely religious, so women (religious or not) should just shut up and welcome pregnancy, whenever. Maybe we should also stop slaughtering cattle so we don't offend Hindus and learn to love the burqa so we won't offend conservative Muslims. Think of all the things we could give up to guarantee "freedom of religion" for all (at least, freedom of religion as defined by extremists in the Roman Catholic Church)!
Posted by: Paula B | April 16, 2012 at 03:43 PM
i had not read one of SC's links before now, but it's pretty good on the war on women. in particular, a link in that piece shreds the notion that obama's economic policies are worse for women. puhleeeze. geepers. i don't know if romney is betting on the brilliance of his advisors, the presumed stupidity of the voting public, or what. but even he must know that what he is saying isn't true.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 16, 2012 at 04:50 PM
Sanctimony, vast wealth and utter obliviousness. Mr. Romney's material Mormonism also too. Take it away Mr. Pierce. Goldmine of links are much fun. :-)
Chapter next in Some of Us are More Deserving than Others .
Posted by: nancy | April 16, 2012 at 05:22 PM
barbara boxer on the war on women.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM
From kathy's link:
Maybe it's time to grab the 'war on women' narrative and reframe it, because these decisions affect men in this country as well. Fathers, sons, boyfriends. Even silly drunken frat-boys shouldn't be forever punished by these legislations being created to punish the sluts. I mean, these people are inviting the return of the shot-gun wedding, modern-style, with DNA paternity testing. Called child-support, in perpetuity. Idjits.
Posted by: nancy | April 16, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Great post, Sir C. I have had it with our elites and their Village enablers with their endless false, absurd equivalencies. Conor is obviously auditioning to be the new David Broder. And Lex--LOL!
BTW, I was talking to some friends over the weekend, and they agreed with me that the GOP will never let Obama nominate a SC justice to replace one of the Gilded Age Five. Just thought I'd mention that.
Posted by: beckya57 | April 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Good column by Jamelle Bouie at the AP on the false equivalence problem.
Can anybody tell me how to put links into comments??? Needs to be in words of one syllable for this computer idiot.
Posted by: beckya57 | April 16, 2012 at 10:46 PM
becky, here are the instructions. scroll on down to hyperlinked text. it doesn't look right, but it works. use the "preview" button to check before posting; if it messes up, you can fix it.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 16, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Also, Becky. See l-t-c's tutorial in the Wednesday, April 11 comment thread. Easy, brief and clear instructions. :-)
Posted by: nancy | April 16, 2012 at 11:50 PM
beckya at 10:43 RE SCOTUS. That states exactly why we have to make sure that Obama has solid majorities in both the house and senate after the next election. Without that we are screwed. The present court is both corrupt and ideologically authoratarian.
I have a bad feeling about this election coming up. The rethuglicans have had four years to engineer as much malfeasance and chikanerie as is possible and there is no doubt they will sling it all at Obama, the greatest possible humiliation they can impose on him is being a one term president. That will really put the mud people in their place and make sure we never have another leader who isn't a perfect white man or appropriately dumb and malleable white woman.
The reality is we need leaders of intelligence, vision and with a firm grasp on the simple but seemingly elusive concept that wishing for something does not make it true.
Here's a thought, what does anyone here suppose would happen if an organization targeting anti-abortion zealots for "elimination" sprung up?
Double standard? Why yes, emphatically yes.
Posted by: KN | April 17, 2012 at 01:38 AM
It almost makes one wish that young Mr Friedersdorf and his 'fiance' should experience an unplanned pregnancy or two and see how they like them apples. Even with freely available and affordable abortion, it's no picnic. Or perhaps a planned but horribly complicated pregnancy. Or a multiple pregnancy where one of your twins doesn't sleep throuh the night till he is six.
Almost. I feel bad wishing those things on another woman.
Life may yet teach him something. But he's not showing aptitude.
Posted by: Emma | April 17, 2012 at 05:37 AM
They don't plan to enforce this part.
Posted by: Mandos | April 17, 2012 at 05:41 AM
an experiment
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM
KN, Emma, and Mandos!
Our international contingent -- as we spread discontent globally.
Yeah, one is struck by the hubris of so many young libertarian types, who seem unable to imagine that public policy could actually impact them, that they too could experience a birth control failure, or a high risk pregnancy, or a fetal anomaly, or any of the other things that prompt millions of people to have abortions in the U.S. every year.
Not only is there a failure of empathy, but also a fundamental failure of imagination in terms of the cruel jokes that life tends to play on people -- libertarians included.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 17, 2012 at 11:32 AM
On the other hand, we have males with high-level security clearance hiring prostitutes as part of a work detail in another country. Considering what we know so far, we have to assume they also operate this way no matter where they are. I say these guys should be REQUIRED to use birth control, under penalty of death. What do the GOP moralists have to say on this issue? I'm sure they'll say it is a gross aberration in conduct tied to the election of a black president.
Posted by: Paula B | April 17, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Not only is there a failure of empathy, but also a fundamental failure of imagination in terms of the cruel jokes that life tends to play on people -- libertarians included.
My impression of libertarianism is that this particularly deficiency is one of its general features. Between that and its inability to notice its own utopianisms I simply can't abide libertarianism.
Posted by: oddjob | April 17, 2012 at 01:06 PM
O/T This is sad news about Levon Helm who is now very ill. I still play The Band and Robbie as needed.
Posted by: nancy | April 17, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Ohhh, I was just going to post the same thing, Nancy. I'm heartbroken. I think Garth is still alive, as well as Robbie.
Posted by: Paula B | April 17, 2012 at 06:42 PM
More o/t I'm afraid.
Mitt Romney is utterly, finally hopeless, not to mention brazenly craven.
Oh indeed. He and Ted Nugent together at last. Let's add Ted to the Romney family photo shoot shall we? Here's a classic Nugent 'move over guys' moment, I believe. Autographs all round I gather. Ann could saute the squirrel and dog for her guest donor and *high-profile* backer. Jesus Mary.
Posted by: nancy | April 17, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Has anyone here read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins? If you haven't I would give it a high five and say you should. It puts our existence in a kind of new perspective that may shock some people. Because it is fundamentally true.
For the females on this thread as a male all I can say is that I have limitless empathy for your decidedly disadvantaged station due to biology. That males are inclined to exploit that disadvantage is worse than shameful, and deserving of excomunication. If we are to advance and explore the universe as an intelligent species, then we must also survive as a species, and for that we must depend on biology, because to date it is beyond our ken. So for the future, female humans will have to put their lives on the line to continue the species.
It is a comment is it not on the state of our science that our long term survival still depends entirely on the primordial mechanism of sex.
Yet we are unique in that we, of all the millions of organisms that have evolved over the long history of the earth, have become aware of the biochemistry that controls us, and are able, through science to constrain our futures. We have the ability to predict. With accuracy.
Posted by: KN | April 17, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Great news: ALEC pulls back on nutso stuff http://bit.ly/I4Cidk
Posted by: Paula B | April 17, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Does anyone here believe that ALEC is going to change their agenda? If you do I have a very nice bridge I would like to sell you at an incredibly reasonable price, it spans the East River between Brooklyn and Manhattan.
This is just diviersionary. The underlying issue is whether the whole Alec scheme was really an elaborate and under the rader system of bribery, graft and corruption. To my mind it is pretty clear that it was. In fact there is no evidence that it is not still the same set up.
A few corporations have ostemsibly abandonded ALEC, that is no where near enough. The whole cabal needs to be exposed and called to accuount for their subversive activities. They clearly have subverted government with money.
One wonders, when will the rule of law apply to the right wing zealosts?
Posted by: KN | April 19, 2012 at 12:46 AM
KN,
I certainly don't think that they will do so out of any change of heart.
I think, however, without the backing of large mainstream corporations though they will be considerably less well-funded or effective.
And I think large publicly traded companies are going to give them a wide berth. They are not worth the possible boycotts or shareholder activism they might prompt.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 19, 2012 at 09:52 AM
KN--Actually, that bridge may already have been sold. NYC is looking to privatize as much property as possible to raise $$$.
As for gullibility, yes, but it doesn't last long. Sometimes we need to believe those things we shouldn't believe.
Posted by: Paula B | April 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM
SC - seriously? The Kochs alone could well afford to dump a billion dollars into ALEC and not even sniff at the set back, in fact they could make up the difference in a a few months simply by gaming the oil commodities markets. Which they are already doing incidentally. Moreover it is my understanding that some 500 major multinationals are participants in ALEC, so just exactly how much impact does the desertion of a hand full of companies have on their overall ability to buy politicians who are notoriously cheap whores, lock stock and barrel? None. Zip, nada. A republican state congressman can be had for a couple hundred thousand dollars, that is chump change to these guys, and there are plenty of buyers. The truly sad thing is they are such cheap whores that they don't have the common sense to bid up their own price to the point that free market economics would come into play and perhaps toss the whole apple cart. They can be bought with less than a million dollars, that makes them think they are high rollers, top of the world and all that, when their owners are sitting on 50,000 times that kind of money. Fools.
Paula B - I am not sure what you mean about gullibility. But I am fairly sure that I could now be a very rich man if I was willing to lie through my teeth and con greedy wannabes with promises of great results from things that are long odds. Sure, privatize everything, that is the ideal of the libertarian and theocratic fanatics. Insatiable greed.
Posted by: KN | April 20, 2012 at 01:50 AM