You may recall an earlier post where I described the humiliation of trying to get a decent photo for another website, to accompany an article I had written for that site. The article is now up at Renewing American Leadership, or ReAL.
BTW, after the debacle of trying to get a decent headshot photo for ReAL, my daughter finally came over with her professional SLR camera and her knowledge of light, shadow, exposure and (certainly not least) her skill at touching up afterwards, to get the picture of me that appears at ReAL. At least she didn’t make me look like I’d just finished the perp walk.
July 8th, 2011 6:08 am
Congrats! Whose hands are those in the picture?
July 8th, 2011 9:14 am
Great article and headshot…hope all is well with you and yours!
July 8th, 2011 9:22 am
What hands?
July 10th, 2011 1:14 am
I applaud your concise article. Was that like being published? I asked myself your questions. Answer: this fight is really about who controls an autonomy, which is sort of a contradictory term.
I find most of your points agreeable, but I’m sure you know it’s an offensive violation of freedom and privacy for government (or anyone else) to make personal moral decisions for people. So what’s your purpose for demanding that? BTW, your frustrated efforts are nothing new. I’m sure you realize that any public policy that was even perceived as an attempt by one group to direct the personal moral values of another has historically proven to be disastrous. It caused a Civil War and Prohibition, to name a couple. Collective moral change doesn’t work that way. Especially in an autonomy, moral change is normally slow and methodical, because it starts privately in the minds of each and every individual. Naturally, as more and more people tend to value the same things, a common way of thinking eventually culminates to become the morality of the whole. That’s just the way it works, or something like that, and it’s usually hazardous to try to govern the process.
I have to chuckle watching how all you leftys and rightys deal with social change in the same unproductive way, over and over. It’s so typically futile. Change is moving too fast, or too slow, and definitely not in the direction you guys want it to go at this moment. So you both panic and stick all your latest demagogic sign posts and autocratic speed bumps in everybody’s face in hopes of corralling a few new people towards your way of thinking, when most of the time it scares them off or sends them in the other direction. At best, this “strategy” produces hopelessly misinformed and confused political representation, constant misidentification by both legislatures and constituencies of social problems (therefore solutions), and it mainly bogs down the already slow, naturally proceeding eventuality of moral change! The longer this fight rages, the more folks are beginning to think that if all these passionately concerned activists would’ve just left them alone, these problems would’ve solved themselves a long time ago.
As a gun rights supporter, I’m sure you know this: just like guns and gun laws don’t kill people, policies or lifestyles don’t lead to death, or produce or hasten life or anything like that. People do. Like it or not, it is individuals making their own free choices within the social structures they are born in (most of the time in spite of them) that will, in its own time, produce life, death, suffering, pleasure, whatever. There’s no stopping it, so maybe it would be better to appreciate everyone’s freedom, make your own good choices, and just get out of the way and let it happen.
July 10th, 2011 4:45 pm
Hi Innermore,
I think YOU are as extreme as any “righty” or “lefty”, you’re just an extreme “libertarian”. You think that makes you above the fray?
A couple comments: conflating the Civil War and Prohibition as any kind of equivalent conflicts is, uh, risible, I think. One flowed (or stopped the flow…) from a desire to regulate a purely personal activity, drinking alcoholic beverages. The other flowed from a desire by some sectors of society to own other human beings as chattel. Sure, the Civil War was disastrous… but how much longer would the USA have had slavery without it? Or, if secession had been allowed, how much longer would the Confederate States have had it? 1900? 1920? The law, and society, should not always wait for “collective moral change”, which is sometimes going the wrong direction. Yes, there is such a thing.
It boils down to this: is a fetus a human being who should enjoy the same protections under law for life and limb as you and I do? If your answer is “NO”, you’re pro-abortion, in the same sense that someone who thinks you should have the right to own/carry guns is “pro-gun,” a common usage.
You said: “I’m sure you know it’s an offensive violation of freedom and privacy for government (or anyone else) to make personal moral decisions for people. So what’s your purpose for demanding that?”
It’s simple. I don’t think society should allow its medical practitioners to kill unborn children for any reason other than to save the life of the mother. I think we should treat mothers who wish to abort for any other reason exactly as we treat people who want to commit suicide. If a mother wants to try to do it to herself, without “medical” help, it’s hard to stop her in advance. You can’t walk into a doctor’s office and demand a suicide pill. Similarly, you should not be able to demand an abortion that isn’t necessary to save your life. You can try to do what you want to the baby inside you, and pay the consequences for that if you do (just as people who attempt suicide sometimes wind up not “succeeding” but suffering greatly).
We don’t generally put people in jail who attempt suicide, though if they are evaluated as a risk to themselves or others, they may be institutionalized for a time. Something similar would be true of women who tried to abort on their own, I suppose. But the doctor who tries to help them do it (the traditional “back alley abortionist”) should do serious jail time, and permanently lose his/her medical license.
So, I answered your question. Now, will you answer one of mine?
Is there any moral issue which, if were not already against the law, would cause you to try to get the law changed without waiting for a change in “collective conscience” or something of the sort? Just to start the ball rolling, how about murder of left-handed, mentally slow, crippled girls below the age of 3 (just to get the ball rolling)? If that was legal, would you try to DO something about it? Or just shrug your libertarian shrug and say, “People will do what they want, and I can’t stop them.”?
July 12th, 2011 7:46 pm
Just one favor I have to ask of you innermore, could you please clearly state one thesis and then build on it? Supporting an argument without clearly stating your intent from the start makes me feel like we are playing jeopardy, except that each answer is an essay that I have to remember to guess the question.
July 24th, 2011 12:40 am
Hello Miner,
I’ll try to keep it short and focused anthony. The inappropriate jolt of revolution usually creates more longstanding suffering than the original cause of that revolution, right or wrong. Abolition went right, Prohibition went wrong. We still feel their painful effects today. A suitable conflation I’d say. Both results occurred because law and politics do have power over collective moral change, but not personal moral change. Nothing has power over that except the person. That’s why an individual may feel strongly oppressed when accused by the rest of society of being a Satan-possessed drunkard, even if he is. Same with hillbillies, bigots, fags, leftys, rightys, baby-murderers, womb-legislators etc. Makes people really really angry too. Please, to avoid genocidal disaster, keep that in mind when planning your next revolution.
For example (let me get collective for a moment): it’s fine for you guys to have your passionate beliefs and causes regarding abortion. But your arguments with each other have become too offensive, and personal. C’mon! casually calling a human being a pro-abortionist, chauvinist, murderer, woman-hater?! Plus, the main premises supporting such common badmouthing are simply ridiculous. Who in their right mind would/could actually BE anti-life or anti-choice?! Can’t you guys see? The offhand insults stemming from these “views” aren’t real, they’re dangerously cartoonish. (Pro-lifers: if you’d prefer your revolution to succeed without mass-murder, try a more civil approach. Like maybe, opening your own “Planned Parenthood” :-))
Boils down to this to me: if you had to pick just one, which would you love and protect the most, a woman or her fetus? A choice like that, in itself, is evil. It should never boil down to that. But if it does, get on your knees and thank God your answer will never be anyone else’s business, no matter how hard they try.
July 24th, 2011 8:24 am
Innermore, I asked you this in previous comment above:
Since you are fine with simply referring to “leftys” and “rightys” as if both are equally benighted and beneath your noble position of laissez faire (and you imply that strong moral convictions, pursued as public policy via democratic means, are somehow socially dangerous and may cause more grief than the evil they are resisting), I hereby christen you a “libby”. That is, an extreme libertarian, every bit as extreme as any communist or crony-capitalist. “Dangerously cartoonish” indeed!
I’d still like an answer to the question I quoted above…. who knows, I might place you somewhere on the “libby spectrum” instead of just pure libby.
July 24th, 2011 4:34 pm
Hang on, I need to finish laughing out loud! Boy, this is fun.
Hmm, okay, moral issues… Sure, I can’t wait around for collective changes in the drug laws, immigration, trade, congressional rules, needs-based programs etc. I’m pretty passionate about improving or removing those policies for moral reasons: via democracy of course. However, the accompanying, socially popular, sub-sewer standard of public character assassination is greatly impeding progress on these and other matters. It is my strong moral conviction that this is the main issue that needs changing. High impact insults and slander have become so mainstream that good people like yourself no longer seem to realize that they are doing it. Liberals actually WANT abortions?! Broadcasting something like that is what’s socially dangerous (even if it were true), causing more unnecessary grief than the evil it’s resisting. That’s debatable, you’d say. But what’s more, due to this cartoonish climate, an elected politician or legislature can’t dare argue about anything substantive anymore, definitely not honestly, for fear and certainty of being smeared off the face of the earth. That’s threatening my democratic means, so knock it off! Did I answer your question? BTW I don’t know if government policy can address this problem without repealing the 1st amendment. So… maybe this one might have to be left up to slow, methodical collective moral evolution. Oh God, I hope not!
Sorry for sounding hypocritically insulting myself. I now realize that “reaching out” this way could appear as if I were egotistically elevating a certain libertarian, self-fantasized nobility; especially from your point of view, as you unwittingly sink into the narrow-minded rhetorical muck (excuse my maniacal laughter)! So. What part of your vast gamut do I fit into now, Monsieur?
July 24th, 2011 8:49 pm
Innermore, you asked
I suppose I would have to say confused libertarian. The reason you can’t take a position without contradicting yourself is because there is an inherent illogic in the notion that people should want moral change but not do everything they can to bring it about.
So you are hoist on your own petard. You call some of us names constantly, while decrying calling names. You call some of us extremists (on both sides), but your position is so extreme that you can’t summon up the courage to directly defend it, because, of course, it’s indefensible. Actually, it’s indescribable… but that’s part of why it’s so hard to defend.
I have to say, however, that I believe YOU call names a great deal more than I do. “Pro-abortion” is not any kind of slander, nor is it a “name”, it is an exact term, with parallel issues in other areas of controversy. I made that point very clearly here (http://tinyurl.com/d4sept). I would defend the term as exact and clear, and not in any way insulting to someone who doesn’t think abortion is a bad thing that should be stopped in all but cases where it is necessary to protect the mother’s life (not some vague “mother’s health”, which seems to mean nothing at all, and anything).
And no: you did not answer my question, because you didn’t even take a position on the general issues you mentioned. After reading what you wrote, I still don’t know what you think about “drug laws, immigration, trade, congressional rules, needs-based programs etc.”. You didn’t say. You just mentioned the issues.
My question remains:
July 24th, 2011 9:03 pm
Innermore, regarding your observation that politicians rarely dare to say something substantive (which often means with some complexity, requiring more than two sentences to describe) because they fear the media caricatures that will result. But surely you know it’s mostly one-sided? The dominant media are mostly left, and it is mostly right-leaning/conservative politicians who are likely to be smeared by that main stream media.
Prime example number one: Sarah Palin. You may not like her, but she is the poster child for media smear and distortion, having been vicitimized in a way more extreme than almost anyone in memory. Find a left/liberal politician who has been so viciously caricatured and smeared in the main stream media. If you can. (plug: I scored the music for the movie advertised in the upper right of this page)
Here is a book you might want to read to learn all about this: http://tinyurl.com/3vjndxw It is not a screed from a right leaning journalist (not that many of those exist). It is a serious work of social science. Check it out. Then stop pretending that the smears are equally thrown in both directions. That’s simply false.
July 30th, 2011 11:17 pm
Biased media is what it is. Quit crying about it and take advantage of it. It’s more accurately a double act in comedy. You’ve got the feed, or stooge (conservatives) and the funny man (liberals). The media knows it’s always more profitable to broadcast “A Show” (funny man) than “The News” (stooge). Lots of pie throwing. That’s why they like to position themselves as liberal. Learn what kind of a theatre they’re running and you’ll always position yourselves better.
It’s interesting you mentioned Sarah Palin. She knows this biased media comedy thing very well, and she’s playin it like a fiddle. For her, the more hokey the better. Firstly next to my heart is that she’s an Alaskan. Not quite the bush, but close enough. I can tell by the way she acts, subtly kicking ass and taking names. Her policies while being governor weren’t as noticeable as her nose for the stench of cronyism, regardless of party. I bet the republicans are gonna have a brokered convention next year; just in time for Palin to slide on in there. Actually, I hope she doesn’t get elected for any office in Washington. Not because of what she might do, but what might be done to her.
I have posted many of my moral issues, and my takes on the laws involved, here in the past. Go back and read’em. Morality can change the law. But I hope you don’t think the law can change morality. Most laws like that were written to persecute certain unsavory groups. They’re also unenforceable, which was what I meant by “People will do what they want”. I have a moral issue with using the law to stuff somebody’s moral issue down my throat.
Wrong. People doing everything possible to bring about moral change should not include consciously repeatedly doing abject things that set back the moral change EVEN MORE. Like routinely hardening the hearts of the current authorities regulating abortion laws by calling them murderers, abortionists, etc. Tell me, if I needed to escape prison, should I bribe the guards or curse them 24 hours a day?
I knew that you were not using the term pro-abortion to insult anyone. I was just illustrating that you can’t even say “pro-abortion” without getting jumped. Here’s another example. Abortion should only occur when the life of the mother is at stake; sshhh, that’s something we agree on. Except, I think the medical nomenclature lists it as spontaneous miscarriage or pregnancy loss. So, why is a medically spontaneous or induced miscarriage publicly defined as an abortion? You know why. Because abortion sounds more profane, provocative, gross, more violent. It’s a high impact image that erases any context, whilst possibly producing blind seething rage from those who would pronounce it and hear it.
An entire pro-choice/pro-life language has been created, designed to ignite fires around this fire: which in turn creates 100’s more advocacy websites, lucrative speech and book circuits, entire media empires devoted to keeping the wrath boiling and the ambitions rising more than trying to change or defend morality. This blindly hyper-emotional way of conducting a “moral debate” has become a philosophy, a religion, a life-style for heaven’s sake! It’s almost like the actual debate on abortion faded a long time ago. Our protocol has become so overwhelmingly complex and LOUD that we’ve forgotten what we were arguing about.
That’s exactly what our obsession with competition has achieved here; making even the simplest public moral arguments heart-rendingly unresolvable. The cultural power brokers (liberals, in your case) have taken advantage of the idea that compassionate people are unknowingly vulnerable to worshiping the warfare of an extremely critical decision more than making the decision itself. We need to better define, and then confront THAT moral issue first, which originally was my contradictory, cowardly, indefensible, indescribable answer to your question that you think I haven’t answered yet.
July 31st, 2011 6:50 am
Innermore, I think all of the foregoing boils down to, “I don’t want to take a position I might want to defend, except that people shouldn’t take strong positions and defend them.”
If it doesn’t boil down to that, I haven’t a clue what you said (or, at least, what it meant). I could, I suppose, take it sentence by sentence and try to reply in a “constructionist” way, i.e., respond to the words you wrote. If I had a crystal ball, I might try responding in an “originalist” way, i.e., respond to what I think you mean… but it seems pointless. I’ll let readers judge who’s making sense.
So I’ll just smile and wave.