One of these things is not like the others. One of these things does not belong.
Linda Hirshman writes a piece for Slatedotcom, "Unnecessarily Evil", with a subtitle including the phrase "the morality of abortion". I can't tell if the author means that there are evils that are moral, or that there are things that are evil in a merely moral sense -- you know, in a way that has no real effect in the world, but just might bother someone in the still, sleepless hours before dawn. But that can't be it, can't it? Cuz there's things like, uh, cheating on your wife, which doesn't matter, since it's only about feelings, and there's, like, killing someone, which has a real, physical, permanent effect. But the author means the second one. Killing someone. So that can't be it.
Killing someone? Is that what the author means? -- in the same paragraph and or sentence as the word "abortion"? Yes. I'll prove it. The subject is of course abortion, the author is an abortionist, and the context is how the Democrats are reclaiming the high ground on this topic. So. Killing someone. Proof.
"The Democratic Party platform of 2008 finally dropped its old abortion language ("safe, legal and rare") .... [and] says instead, 'The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.' Should a woman desire to bear her child, the Dems advocate prenatal care, income support, and adoption programs to help her there, too."
There. Did you see it? The author missed it, inevitably. "Should a woman desire to bear her child, the Dems advocate..." There, did you see? "...bear her child..." "...her child..." "...CHILD..." It's not very subtle. How could the author have missed it? Abortion is about killing a child.
"Edward Lazarus, who clerked for the author of [Roe v Wade], Justice Harry Blackmun, called the decision "the Emancipation Proclamation for American women." But if Roe was Emancipation, the past three decades have felt like the Jim Crow South. Unable to repeal the decision itself, opponents made abortion as illegitimate as possible."
Lazarus. A name familiar to us from several biographies of a well-known Jew. Lazarus, who was called back out from the bowels of death itself. Now another Lazarus comes forth, to the sound of small bones cracking beneath his feet. He compares childbearing to slavery. He sees no difference. The author complains that abortion has opponents who do not see it as legitimate, and are therefore bigots. Lazarus. A man who is intimate with death. And is there some biblical character after whom the author might be named? Linda Hirshman?
Linda means lovely in the romance languages. Melinda means gentle one. Not helpful. Belinda means beautiful snake, which is probably meaningless. Odilia, somehow related, means in Hebrew praise god. This must be a coincidence. I can find no connection between a beautiful serpent and some god who demands praise. Hirsh- is Yiddish for deer -- gazelle or hind, a noble and graceful beast. Often hunted. And -man, made from dust, inbreathed with the spirit of God. Well. Such reasoning has brought us no insight. I see no relevance in any of this. A dead end.
The author expresses disapprobation at the thought that, of all people, Barack Obama "compared women's regrets over their past abortions to white people's regrets about past bigotry. This Clintonian compromise -- that abortion was a necessary moral evil -- had become the most progressives could hope for." Which the author sees as unfortunate, somehow unfortunate. Because "the emancipation of women may once again become a legitimate political position. It is time to revive the moral argument for protecting a woman's right to choose: Abortion is about the value of women's lives."
A clear statement. A shot across the bow.
The position is taken that pragmatics is a losing argument -- morality is what wins. Abortion as liberation. A slight reframing, and privacy is no longer "secrecy," but "autonomy." Some might characterize such a twist as equating freedom with irresponsibility. But that's why there are two sides to the issue. The Supreme Court is quoted with approval, thus: "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." They have failed to grasp that most fundamental concept inherent in liberty: it is inextricably bound up with responsibility. There is no morality, outside of the context of a society. God makes laws. We can define words and concepts any way we wish, and hope that we are understood. We must act rightly.
Well. I thought I could read all of that piece. I can't. Not without being paid to do so. I'll leave it at this: the left has ensured that there are laws protecting the eggs of endangered species -- turtles and condors and so on. It's a good thing. The left would, it seems, see the destruction of the Western way of life, rather than of any more rain forests. The left believes that abortion is about the value of life, of women's lives.
What is necessary cannot be evil. What is moral cannot be evil. What is necessary must be moral. What is moral, is necessary.
Turtle eggs, rain forests, human fetuses. One of these things is not like the others.
J
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
Vomit
Do not read this if you are of a markedly sensitive nature.
Most of what I play at here is just silly. Satire and absurdity and indignation. I don't deal in depth with evil. Yeah, outrage about islamist bombers, but that's pretty standard fare. Then there's Aliza Shvarts, an art major in her senior year at Yale, who planned as her contribution to a student art fair to "repeatedly artificially inseminate herself, then induce miscarriages, which she would record on video. She would build a four-foot-wide plastic cube and wrap it in layers of plastic. Between the layers would be Vaseline mixed with blood from the miscarriages. She would hang the cube at an exhibition and project video of the miscarriages onto four of its sides."
That actually seems sort of hard to follow. Would her numerous abortuses each be on display, perhaps in different states of incipient but not manifest humanity? And what's the vaseline for? -- some sort of oblique reference to vaginal dryness or the artificial nature of intercourse in the Post-neopost-postmodern Era? And a cube, why a cube? Hardly womblike. Better, I should think, some free-flowing organic shape, no? But no, that would be so derivative, so obvious, no? No, the cube is a playful pun, on pube, get it? See? And also on the mathematical concept of cube, suggesting the threefold oppression by "men" of women, as sexual objects, mother objects, and housewife objects. And violence objects. Of course. The cube then would be part of the artistic conception, tee hee, as it were. Wombs make a woman into a mere machine -- a sort of incubator. Yeah, that's good.
"For the past year," said Ms. Shvarts to the Yale Daily News, "I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages.… Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization. On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding. ... Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading."
"This piece," asseverates Ms. Shvarts by way of exegesis, "is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body.... It creates an ambiguity that isolates the locus of ontology to an act of readership."
Ah. That explains it. We will overlook her imprecise diction; she is, after all, an art student, not an English major. Form does not converge on the body -- neither does function. If her meaning is that form and function converge, the preposition would be "within", not "on". But we mustn't stifle the creativity of our young people by foolishly imposing the rigors of such linguistic artifacts. Her vision is so much grander ... grander than gender -- that's good. You should quote me on that. Grander than gender. That's what I'm going to call this one. Grander Than Gender, by Jack H, famous internet blogger artiste extraordinaire.
For some reason the panjandrums of Yale forbad the inclusion of her piece. Pieces. A health hazard. Using unpublished and perhaps nonexistent evidence, they asserted that she had faked the miscarriages and presumably the medical waste, and stated the installation would not be included in the exhibition without a written disclaimer that no human was involved in the production of the mixed media. Shvarts stood strong, bolstering the integrity of her case by producing video of her bleeding vaginally into a cup. (This author feels that the Shvarts choice of a cup is flawed, as too closely evoking the receptive nature of the form. Better would have been a glass, illustrative of the fragility of the female condition in oppressive male-dominated Western society.)
As for the two faculty members who approved this artwork, Yale officials have announced unspecified "appropriate action". One cannot say the action is "against" them, since that would over-extend the facts in evidence. Perhaps congratulations were felt to be in order? Courage should be recognized, after all, even when the outcome is muted by reactionary birthist bigots? It would be that same sort of backwards thinking that deflated plans in 2003 to have two students complete coarse project requirements by enjoying intercourse in front of the class. So much for academic freedom. Hix nix prix sex kix.
Enumerated among Shvarts's "conceptual goals" was "to assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form. It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are 'meant' to do from their physical capability." Her aim was to demonstrate that "it is a myth that ovaries and a uterus are 'meant' to birth a child." You go girl. That's why I like sodomy.
Yep. Ambiguity. That's what I like. It makes me feel so artistic. I mean, didn't Sartre write about nausea? It's the meaning of life, practically.
J
Most of what I play at here is just silly. Satire and absurdity and indignation. I don't deal in depth with evil. Yeah, outrage about islamist bombers, but that's pretty standard fare. Then there's Aliza Shvarts, an art major in her senior year at Yale, who planned as her contribution to a student art fair to "repeatedly artificially inseminate herself, then induce miscarriages, which she would record on video. She would build a four-foot-wide plastic cube and wrap it in layers of plastic. Between the layers would be Vaseline mixed with blood from the miscarriages. She would hang the cube at an exhibition and project video of the miscarriages onto four of its sides."
That actually seems sort of hard to follow. Would her numerous abortuses each be on display, perhaps in different states of incipient but not manifest humanity? And what's the vaseline for? -- some sort of oblique reference to vaginal dryness or the artificial nature of intercourse in the Post-neopost-postmodern Era? And a cube, why a cube? Hardly womblike. Better, I should think, some free-flowing organic shape, no? But no, that would be so derivative, so obvious, no? No, the cube is a playful pun, on pube, get it? See? And also on the mathematical concept of cube, suggesting the threefold oppression by "men" of women, as sexual objects, mother objects, and housewife objects. And violence objects. Of course. The cube then would be part of the artistic conception, tee hee, as it were. Wombs make a woman into a mere machine -- a sort of incubator. Yeah, that's good.
"For the past year," said Ms. Shvarts to the Yale Daily News, "I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages.… Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization. On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding. ... Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading."
"This piece," asseverates Ms. Shvarts by way of exegesis, "is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body.... It creates an ambiguity that isolates the locus of ontology to an act of readership."
Ah. That explains it. We will overlook her imprecise diction; she is, after all, an art student, not an English major. Form does not converge on the body -- neither does function. If her meaning is that form and function converge, the preposition would be "within", not "on". But we mustn't stifle the creativity of our young people by foolishly imposing the rigors of such linguistic artifacts. Her vision is so much grander ... grander than gender -- that's good. You should quote me on that. Grander than gender. That's what I'm going to call this one. Grander Than Gender, by Jack H, famous internet blogger artiste extraordinaire.
For some reason the panjandrums of Yale forbad the inclusion of her piece. Pieces. A health hazard. Using unpublished and perhaps nonexistent evidence, they asserted that she had faked the miscarriages and presumably the medical waste, and stated the installation would not be included in the exhibition without a written disclaimer that no human was involved in the production of the mixed media. Shvarts stood strong, bolstering the integrity of her case by producing video of her bleeding vaginally into a cup. (This author feels that the Shvarts choice of a cup is flawed, as too closely evoking the receptive nature of the form. Better would have been a glass, illustrative of the fragility of the female condition in oppressive male-dominated Western society.)
As for the two faculty members who approved this artwork, Yale officials have announced unspecified "appropriate action". One cannot say the action is "against" them, since that would over-extend the facts in evidence. Perhaps congratulations were felt to be in order? Courage should be recognized, after all, even when the outcome is muted by reactionary birthist bigots? It would be that same sort of backwards thinking that deflated plans in 2003 to have two students complete coarse project requirements by enjoying intercourse in front of the class. So much for academic freedom. Hix nix prix sex kix.
Enumerated among Shvarts's "conceptual goals" was "to assert that often, normative understandings of biological function are a mythology imposed on form. It is this mythology that creates the sexist, racist, ableist, nationalist and homophobic perspective, distinguishing what body parts are 'meant' to do from their physical capability." Her aim was to demonstrate that "it is a myth that ovaries and a uterus are 'meant' to birth a child." You go girl. That's why I like sodomy.
Yep. Ambiguity. That's what I like. It makes me feel so artistic. I mean, didn't Sartre write about nausea? It's the meaning of life, practically.
J
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Vermin
I hardly feel like trudging through this muck again -- it all seems so superfluous. But let's go through the motions. Obama and his comment over the weekend. Someone asked him about his feelings on abortion. Well, we know about that already. He has a 100% rating from the abortionist lobby ... you know, Planned Parenthood -- organized by Margaret Sanger to exterminate the black and other inferior races. You think I'm kidding? This stellar organization has since expanded its portfolio to be against all races ... well, no, not the animal races, just the human race. But I digress. PP is so very much in favor of Obama, since he is so in favor of them. They're the sugar in each other's coffee. We should write a song about it.
Anyways, Hugh Hewitt was going on about this sound byte. Some dude queried Obama on the matter, and he said, "Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals. But -- if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16. So it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Well, of course the thing to latch on to there is the idea of punishment. Mothers are punished with babies. You know, the way teenagers who have sex in slasher movies are punished ... only it's the babies who get slashed. Did you know that babies are a punishment? Obama's two daughters must be punishments. Could I be wrong? Unwanted babies are punishments, and wanted fetuses are babies. Or something. Anyway, the fetus has no intrinsic value. It's entirely optional. Like the humanity of, oh, say, Africans in the slave market. If they're on the block, not quite human. If holding the whip, human. Get it? Perfectly logical, if you accept the premise, of: humanity is debatable.
Babies are not punishments. Neither are they blessings. These are such arbitrary labels, after all. What babies are, universally, in the animal kingdom, are duties.
Obama is a bright guy, and he realized even as the words slipped from his lips what would be made of them. So he immediately clouded the issue with a non sequitur, conflating abortion with sex ed. The question wasn't about 'giving them information.' And, obviously, the link between abortion and STDs -- properly, VD -- the link is not as solid as glib consideration would make it seem. Both may result from intercourse, but it is as much as to say that air causes cancer -- living things need air, and may get cancer. Um, well, no? I could labor through the logic of it, but why bother. Upshot is, pregnancy is not a punishment. Put more poignantly, life is not a disease.
And then there's this idea of morals and values. Just what precisely, I wonder, is Obama going to teach his little girls about moralsandvalues? It's a tricky issue for me to talk about, because I don't want to go laying any heavy head trips on y'all. We will, all of us, fail to live up to our moralsandvalues, where ever we may have learned them. But what Obama must intend on teaching his little girls is that when they might slip and fall and make some mistake, one of their moralvalues is that the pregnancy may be terminated. That's his value, after all. And if that choice is included in his values, then teen pregnancy can't really be immoral. So why bring morality into the discussion of abortion? There is a public debate, but there wouldn't be a debate going on in Obama's own mind, or in his moral instructions to his children.
If that reasoning seems muddy, it's because Obama's thinking is muddy. Abortionists have muddy thinking on the matter. If you disagree, please, please tell me where I'm wrong. I'll be sarcastic with you only if you're sarcastic with me.
Ah well. I told you I didn't want to jump through these tiresome hoops. It's always the same old circus. Words are useless, and thinking is hard. But how else will anyone come to an understanding of the magnitude of this issue? We kill babies in America. Legally. I'm all for legal killing. Wars. Executions. You know, enemies. But babies? I don't think much about it. It would make me heartsick.
It must be a bit creepy, for Obama's daughters, though, when they finally realize that they were a choice, to which the answer could have been a bloody NO. How grateful these children should be, to have been allowed to be born. How generous the parents must be, to assume the pain of their existence. So noble.
My son was never a choice. He was always a person.
J
Anyways, Hugh Hewitt was going on about this sound byte. Some dude queried Obama on the matter, and he said, "Look, I got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals. But -- if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16. So it doesn't make sense to not give them information."
Well, of course the thing to latch on to there is the idea of punishment. Mothers are punished with babies. You know, the way teenagers who have sex in slasher movies are punished ... only it's the babies who get slashed. Did you know that babies are a punishment? Obama's two daughters must be punishments. Could I be wrong? Unwanted babies are punishments, and wanted fetuses are babies. Or something. Anyway, the fetus has no intrinsic value. It's entirely optional. Like the humanity of, oh, say, Africans in the slave market. If they're on the block, not quite human. If holding the whip, human. Get it? Perfectly logical, if you accept the premise, of: humanity is debatable.
Babies are not punishments. Neither are they blessings. These are such arbitrary labels, after all. What babies are, universally, in the animal kingdom, are duties.
Obama is a bright guy, and he realized even as the words slipped from his lips what would be made of them. So he immediately clouded the issue with a non sequitur, conflating abortion with sex ed. The question wasn't about 'giving them information.' And, obviously, the link between abortion and STDs -- properly, VD -- the link is not as solid as glib consideration would make it seem. Both may result from intercourse, but it is as much as to say that air causes cancer -- living things need air, and may get cancer. Um, well, no? I could labor through the logic of it, but why bother. Upshot is, pregnancy is not a punishment. Put more poignantly, life is not a disease.
And then there's this idea of morals and values. Just what precisely, I wonder, is Obama going to teach his little girls about moralsandvalues? It's a tricky issue for me to talk about, because I don't want to go laying any heavy head trips on y'all. We will, all of us, fail to live up to our moralsandvalues, where ever we may have learned them. But what Obama must intend on teaching his little girls is that when they might slip and fall and make some mistake, one of their moralvalues is that the pregnancy may be terminated. That's his value, after all. And if that choice is included in his values, then teen pregnancy can't really be immoral. So why bring morality into the discussion of abortion? There is a public debate, but there wouldn't be a debate going on in Obama's own mind, or in his moral instructions to his children.
If that reasoning seems muddy, it's because Obama's thinking is muddy. Abortionists have muddy thinking on the matter. If you disagree, please, please tell me where I'm wrong. I'll be sarcastic with you only if you're sarcastic with me.
Ah well. I told you I didn't want to jump through these tiresome hoops. It's always the same old circus. Words are useless, and thinking is hard. But how else will anyone come to an understanding of the magnitude of this issue? We kill babies in America. Legally. I'm all for legal killing. Wars. Executions. You know, enemies. But babies? I don't think much about it. It would make me heartsick.
It must be a bit creepy, for Obama's daughters, though, when they finally realize that they were a choice, to which the answer could have been a bloody NO. How grateful these children should be, to have been allowed to be born. How generous the parents must be, to assume the pain of their existence. So noble.
My son was never a choice. He was always a person.
J
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Roe v. Dred Scot
Doctor Martin Luther King Junior Day and National Abortion Commemoration Day are almost the same day. Isn’t that odd?
No, it isn’t. The Freakenomics guys pointed out a curious trend. Crime rates started to fall dramatically precisely one generation after abortion became wide-spread and legal in the United States.
Who is it that gets aborted? Or should I be politically correct, and say “what” is it? Mostly minorities. Minority babies. Or should I say minority “fetuses”.
What does such a factoid mean? That the socially conservative policies enacted during the Eighties -- three strikes and zero tolerance and suchlike -- were effective? Or that the criminals who would have been committing those absent crimes had been proactively executed, in the womb.
My vast conservative readership will already know it, but for the growing throng of liberals who flock to these pages out of their great craving for lucidity and gentleness, I will observe that the driving force behind the legalization of abortion was Margaret Sanger. And her major impetus, the reason for her social conscience, was eugenics. Eugenics, for my younger readers, is that school of social thought that would improve the general tone of mankind by killing its inferior representatives. Popular in the early Twentieth Century, reaching its highest expression during the Third Reich. Jews, Gypsies, criminals, homosexuals, mental defectives, syphilitics, Africans. You know, inferiors. This, per Hitler and Sanger.
There was a time when I had the statistics at my finger tips. Another decade. But it’s mostly black babies who get aborted. I have several times made the connection, here. Between abortion and slavery. Fetuses and blacks -- the two groups who aren’t human. Not fully human, if human at all. The Dred Scot decision formulated the idea: a black man has no rights that a white man is bound to honor. Roe v. Wade reiterated it. I don’t actually have a quote for it. It’s just that it’s okay to kill babies. You won’t remember Chief Justice Taney. Or even Chief Justice Warren. The two moral giants behind these two equivalent pieces of judicial legislation. But isn’t it funny, how it’s the blacks, again, who enjoy the full benefit of such decisions?
We might speculate what old time heroes JFK and King would make of what happened to their movements and parties. Kennedy would be a mainstream conservative Republican today. Lower taxes, strong national defense, compassion from government. King would not recognize the torchbearers of his legacy. The hideous reverend jesse jackson, with his extortions and self-seeking and policies of division, would have been an abomination to King. King was a Bible-based preacher, who viewed abortion as the killing of a baby. I suggest that if the great issue of his day were not civil rights -- let’s suppose equality had been achieved -- King would have marched for the unborn.
Whom did he side with, after all? The powerful? The privileged? Or with those who have no voice? Dogs and firehoses are bad enough. It is an affront to every honorable man to benefit from such conditions, silently. We must stand up and speak out and put ourselves in harms way if need be, to stop grotesque injustice. I speak as a hypocrite now. But King was not a hypocrite -- not so that we’d know it. He had his human failings and all, but we do not require perfection. We need courage. And he had that.
Where is our courage? Where is our hero? There are only victims. We stand, silently watching.
As for all those dead black babies who aren’t committing their crimes, Sanger was obviously correct. Society is better off. Who else can we kill early?
On the other hand, maybe if black families were actually families, like with a father, the way it used to be before government social programs destroyed the black community, maybe love rather than death would prove to be an effective preventative measure against crime.
But that's just too simplistic -- an unthinking, unsophisticated conservative answer that requires sacrifice and commitment. I must be wrong.
On an entirely unrelated note, famed liberal actor Heath Ledger was found today dead in his Manhattan apartment amid a scatter of pills. He had a tattoo on his back -- "Fuck the World."
J
No, it isn’t. The Freakenomics guys pointed out a curious trend. Crime rates started to fall dramatically precisely one generation after abortion became wide-spread and legal in the United States.
Who is it that gets aborted? Or should I be politically correct, and say “what” is it? Mostly minorities. Minority babies. Or should I say minority “fetuses”.
What does such a factoid mean? That the socially conservative policies enacted during the Eighties -- three strikes and zero tolerance and suchlike -- were effective? Or that the criminals who would have been committing those absent crimes had been proactively executed, in the womb.
My vast conservative readership will already know it, but for the growing throng of liberals who flock to these pages out of their great craving for lucidity and gentleness, I will observe that the driving force behind the legalization of abortion was Margaret Sanger. And her major impetus, the reason for her social conscience, was eugenics. Eugenics, for my younger readers, is that school of social thought that would improve the general tone of mankind by killing its inferior representatives. Popular in the early Twentieth Century, reaching its highest expression during the Third Reich. Jews, Gypsies, criminals, homosexuals, mental defectives, syphilitics, Africans. You know, inferiors. This, per Hitler and Sanger.
There was a time when I had the statistics at my finger tips. Another decade. But it’s mostly black babies who get aborted. I have several times made the connection, here. Between abortion and slavery. Fetuses and blacks -- the two groups who aren’t human. Not fully human, if human at all. The Dred Scot decision formulated the idea: a black man has no rights that a white man is bound to honor. Roe v. Wade reiterated it. I don’t actually have a quote for it. It’s just that it’s okay to kill babies. You won’t remember Chief Justice Taney. Or even Chief Justice Warren. The two moral giants behind these two equivalent pieces of judicial legislation. But isn’t it funny, how it’s the blacks, again, who enjoy the full benefit of such decisions?
We might speculate what old time heroes JFK and King would make of what happened to their movements and parties. Kennedy would be a mainstream conservative Republican today. Lower taxes, strong national defense, compassion from government. King would not recognize the torchbearers of his legacy. The hideous reverend jesse jackson, with his extortions and self-seeking and policies of division, would have been an abomination to King. King was a Bible-based preacher, who viewed abortion as the killing of a baby. I suggest that if the great issue of his day were not civil rights -- let’s suppose equality had been achieved -- King would have marched for the unborn.
Whom did he side with, after all? The powerful? The privileged? Or with those who have no voice? Dogs and firehoses are bad enough. It is an affront to every honorable man to benefit from such conditions, silently. We must stand up and speak out and put ourselves in harms way if need be, to stop grotesque injustice. I speak as a hypocrite now. But King was not a hypocrite -- not so that we’d know it. He had his human failings and all, but we do not require perfection. We need courage. And he had that.
Where is our courage? Where is our hero? There are only victims. We stand, silently watching.
As for all those dead black babies who aren’t committing their crimes, Sanger was obviously correct. Society is better off. Who else can we kill early?
On the other hand, maybe if black families were actually families, like with a father, the way it used to be before government social programs destroyed the black community, maybe love rather than death would prove to be an effective preventative measure against crime.
But that's just too simplistic -- an unthinking, unsophisticated conservative answer that requires sacrifice and commitment. I must be wrong.
On an entirely unrelated note, famed liberal actor Heath Ledger was found today dead in his Manhattan apartment amid a scatter of pills. He had a tattoo on his back -- "Fuck the World."
J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
