kimmy

Really, now. That' just petty. I was asking whether you think there are any other issues where someone's just not a woman if they disagree. I take that as a no? First, it's climb the "ladder". Second, as I said, I'm fascinated at the description of her as "self hating". If abortion access is the "ladder" she's supposed to be pulling up behind her, then as far as I have heard she didn't climb that latter at all. I'll ask again: which principles and values are central? Is abortion access the only one where they'll be calling for your uterus if you disagree? So ultimately, someone's views on any other issue relating to womens' health and happiness in society are irrelevant if they're not pro-choice? And if someone's pro-choice, then their opinions on other issues don't matter? Is that the real litmus test for a "feminist"? Some hypothetical frat-boy whose stance on abortion access is determined by his belief that chicks are more likely to put out if they can get an abortion and/or that he's less likely to wind up paying child support if chicks can get abortions: a feminist! Kimmy: not a feminist. I don't think I said she is "supposed" to feel any certain way. I certainly don't make any claim to know how "most" women feel after abortions. But she's not going into a McDonald's. She is going to experience physical pain and medical risks (so it's a bit like McDonald's) and while I realize that some would liken it to having an appendix removed, I suspect most women feel differently about an abortion than they feel about an appendectomy. -k

It seems fitting that you'd find your way to a thread about "derangement". -k

It doesn't change the point any. A fertilized egg results in a live birth about 80% of the time, if not deliberately terminated. If you can find a single incident where skin-cells washed off of someone have grown into a complete human being, contact Agent Mulder immediately. No, not really. That argument, or your synopsis of it at least, has a rather glaring flaw: a fetus, even in the latest stages of pregnancy, is surprisingly portable. Unless this concert violinist weighs just a few pounds and can be carried conveniently about on the blood donor's waist, I think the comparison is highly melodramatic but not very compelling. Perhaps Dr Thompson's paper addresses this difficulty; I have not yet read it. If one is committed to the belief that the fetus is a human life, then one is committed to the belief that terminating it is immoral. I question the real motivation of "pro-lifers" who think exceptions for rape or incest are fair. It seems to me like it doesn't come from genuine concern that a life is being terminated, but rather from a perspective of punishment, which is a completely messed up way to look at things. -k

I've never heard of sloughed off skin cells growing into a complete human being, so trying to equate a fetus with sloughed off skin cells strikes me as pretty inane. Nobody has been able to arrive at a universally accepted definition of when a human life begins. There's not a concensus among scientists, or medical professionals, or ethicists, or philosophers. I doubt that we're going to accomplish anything here. However, I have to point out that some research indicates that a considerable amount of who we are is determined in our genetics. Everything about you, including your personality, is defined to a considerable degree by your DNA. And, if there was a comatose patient whose doctor had a high degree of confidence would fully recover within a matter of months, the doctor wouldn't let that patient be euthanized. It is easy to think of situations where some lives deserve higher priority than other lives. I don't have any trouble at all with the idea that, for instance, somebody should have shot Vincent Li if there were a chance to save Tim McLean. Easy choice to make. I'd put a much higher value on Tim McLean's life than on Vincent Li's. If we had one donor organ, and two patients who needed it to survive, I would hope that the patient with the best chance of living longer and healthier would get the organ. But those are situations where there are clear determinants, and mutually exclusive outcomes. Both patients can't get the organ, Vincent Li and Tim McLean can't both survive. However, I see no clear determinants at all in choosing one fetus over another. And there's no need to value one fetus over another, because there's no reason why they can't both live. It appears as you you'd like to slippery-slope the one exception everybody agrees on (namely that abortion should be available if continuing the pregnancy would put the mother's life in danger) into other exceptions, but there's not a slippery-slope connection between the situations, there's a cliff. -k

If there are one-issue voters whose one-issue is marijuana... I ... ... somehow that strikes me as having probably a pretty low impact. -k

The video title, "Jack Layton on Marijuana" could certainly be misconstrued... FWIW, no complaints with what Layton is actually saying here, aside from the praise being lavished on Michael Moore. However, I don't think the Hell's Angels would ever allow pot to be legalized. There'd be assassinations. -k

I think the original argument was not that "the left" doesn't like Palin. (Obviously, the left shouldn't like Palin.) The "Derangement Syndrome" part refers to the those who have gone far beyond the realm of rational, sensible political debate. There seem to be some people for whom Palin has provoked a furious reaction far beyond what you'd expect a VP candidate to cause. The opening post linked to some pretty good examples. -k

The Conservatives might hope the Liberals attack based on the environment for 2 reasons: * the Liberals' record on the environment was not good either. (Remember all the steps they took toward implementing a plan to reach the commitments we made in Kyoto? They had a majority government for many years, and all they actually did was put Rick Mercer on TV to talk about the "One Ton Challenge".) * the environment has been fizzling as an election issue for the Liberals thus far. -k

I don't actually know that the Democrats have been accusing her of that. I do know that some in the media have tried to make sex-education an issue, perhaps in an effort to justify the media feeding-frenzy around Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Is sex education actually an issue in the presidential campaign? Is educational curriculum determined in Washington, or in state legislatures? I always actually kind of assumed that it was in the sphere of state control, but I don't know for sure. Anyway, the claim that she's for abstinence-only seems to originate from a questionnaire she replied to when she was campaigning to become governor: MSNBC She actually dodges most of the question, not saying anything about abstinence only, or clinics or condoms in schools, just that she doesn't support "explicit" sex education programs. LA Times: ok, so what does "explicit" mean, exactly? She is a definitely a politician. -k

Yeah, I saw that. It does nothing to change the fact that the Liberals mastered the art of slandering and smearing their opponents and employed it faithfully from the end of the Mulroney era right through to present day. People (ie BC Chick) who'd claim this was something new in Canada that the CPC just invented are stunningly wrong. -k

The ad makes no attempt at all to assign accountability for the listeriosis outbreak. The ad does not blame Harper for lax food inspection regulations. The ad blames Harper for not firing a guy who made crass remarks. You can say otherwise as many times as you wish, but that does not actually change the content of the ad. The ad does not say what you wish it said; your insistence to the contrary indicate either very poor comprehension skills, a desire to revise facts to make them more flattering to the Liberals, or a psychological disconnection from reality. Perhaps you should call the Liberal campaign team and suggest to them that they produce the ad you wish they had made, instead of the ad they actually made. -k

Thanks for addressing BC Chick's attempt to portray negative advertising as something brand new in Canadian politics that never existed until some CPC honks lifted it from Karl Rove's playbook. It struck me as a highly selective version of Canadian history, to put it charitably. Like, did I just imagine the Chretien era, or what? -k

The Liberal ad is criticizing the PM for not firing a guy who made a crass remark. Trying to spin this as a call for accountability in the listeriosis outbreak is either dumb or dishonest. -k

There is a disparity there, for certain. However, I think many people, regardless of their stance on abortion access, would argue that abortion is not the only remedy to that situation. I think the mere existence of abortion provides men with a psychological get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to sexual responsibility and parental responsibilities. It becomes much too easy for men to just wash their hands of the whole thing, while the woman never gets to wash her hands of the whole thing whichever she chooses. Tried and failed? As far as I know, abstinence is a 100% effective method of birth control. In reference to Palin specifically, it's been shown that she has not attempted to block sex education, did not attempt to restrict it to abstinence-only, and specifically said she was in favor of educating about condoms. She also dramatically increased government support for Covenant House, an organization that assists teenage mothers. I'd think that would be the sort of stance people would support regardless of their position on abortion access. If I were premier or governor of some hypothetical piece of land, one of the things on my agenda would be to provide assistance to women who make the "other" choice. Enhancing enforcement of child support, expanding availability of daycare, especially for students, offering incentives for employers to help accommodate employees with children, that sort of thing. I'd also take every possible legal step to remove anything resembling parental rights from fathers of children conceived through rape. It is possible to have a fulfilling sex life without risking pregnancy. (PM me if you're interested in some pointers.) -k

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for either position. I guess I am "pro-choice" in the sense that I would not choose to have an abortion but am unwilling to advocate that other women shouldn't either. -k

If people support what Canadian forces are doing in Afghanistan, they have to understand that it doesn't happen for free. If $2 billion a year is the price tag, then that should be part of the discussion of whether our involvement there is worth it. If people oppose Canada's role in Afghanistan, the financial cost as well as the cost in lives is a legitimate topic of discussion. It's a relevant piece of the debate. Personally, I am very proud of the role Canada has taken in Afghanistan, even though it has not been cheap or easy. -k

If one believes that a fetus is a human life, then making exceptions in cases of rape or incest is not a sensible position. I can respect the pro-choice position. I can respect the pro-life position. But I can't respect the kinda-maybe-sometimes compromise that makes exceptions in certain situations depending on the circumstances of conception. How does one arrive at the headspace to decide that a fetus is a human life, and yet some of them don't have the same rights as others due to the circumstances of their conception? The logic underlying exceptions for victims of rape and incest is fundamentally abhorrent. As Mr Miyagi said, walk on the right side of the road, or walk on the left side of the road. Walk in the middle of the road, and sooner or later squish like grape. Is this in reference to Palin, specifically? Because the claim that she attempted to block sex education had been discredited last I heard. I was specifically asking about big state-run daycare programs. I haven't heard of anybody advocating the idea of "equal pay for equal work" --the notion that a woman doing the same job as a man should earn less money, although I understand that it was held by some during the post-war era (but I thankfully don't need to re-fight the battles of the 1950s and 1960s.) I've never actually heard of a woman being paid less to do the same job as a man with the same experience and qualifications. But I asked about "equal pay for work of equal value," a concept that extends beyond simple common-sense ideas of fairness. I always kind of thought I was the sort of person they mean when they're talking about women who don't self-identify as feminists but actually holds feminist ideals. Perhaps I'm wrong on this. It seems to me that the whole concept has been redefined towards a specific political agenda and I just missed the memo. -k

I don't discount the idea that this ad could discourage some people from voting Conservative... but I'm skeptical that it'll encourage people to vote Liberal instead. For undecided voters, I think one likely response is to increase their sense of apathy. "Guuuh, I'm so sick of these guys. Maybe I'll stay home and watch TV instead of voting." I think another likely response is that they might encourage people to consider the NDP or Green as an alternative. "Guuuh, I'm so sick of the way politics is done in this country. Maybe it's time to stop voting for the old-line parties." -k

So, how did an annoying little shrike like Campbell Brown get a job in national broadcasting? -k

So it's not a "big tent" anymore? You're not in the club unless you support abortion access and vote left-of-center? Are there other issues people need to tow the party line on? Is it just abortion access and party affiliation, or is there more? Do you have to support a state-run daycare program? If you disagree with the enormous sham of statistics laughingly referred to as "Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value", are you also "not a woman"? Let's cut to the chase. Do I have to turn in my uterus, BD? I'm getting worried here. 'cuz she's got lots of kids? 'cuz she's not a Democrat? One woman might believe that motherhood and professional success aren't mutually exclusive. Another woman might buy into the view that children are an obstacle that a woman must either avoid or overcome. Which one is *really* self-hating? So, I guess I'm just not ready for this new post-post-feminist feminism which seems to boil down entirely to abortion access. I'm suggesting that this sudden interest in defining feminism on party lines and narrow issues doesn't really jive with the aforementioned complaint that feminism had been pigeonholed into an ideological realm that people don't relate to. Such nimrods undoubtedly exist (probably in numbers comparable to those who'd vote for a black man whatever his beliefs.) I'm actually more under the impression that she was chosen to appease nimrods of a different sort (evangelicals, specifically) but whatever. "People like Palin"? Cite? I don't actually know. I do know that she's a member of a group called "Feminists For Life". I don't know anything about the group, but I do know that there are people who don't see that "feminist" and "pro-life" are not mutually exclusive positions. So if Barack had chosen Hilary as his running mate, would you be equally sad? I mean, she'd just be there because it was an expedient political decision. That would have been pretty terrible for you, I imagine. -k

Quite a collection, August. If one disregards the quotes from folks like Roseanne Barr and Lindsey Lohan, who don't presume to be deep thinkers, it's still quite a collection. The two themes that are most striking are the motherhood one, as you mentioned, and this one: 14) "Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain't no woman. I confess, it was pretty riveting when John McCain trotted out Sarah Palin for the first time. Like many people, I thought, "D*mn, a hyperconservative, f*ckable, Type A, antiabortion, Christian Stepford wife in a 'sexy librarian' costume -- as a vice president? That's a brilliant stroke of horrifyingly cynical pandering to the Christian right. Karl Rove must be behind it." -- Cintra Wilson, Salon 6) "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman." -- Wendy Doniger at the Washington Post For years, feminists have bemoaned that "feminist" has somehow become a dirty word. To paraphrase, "Somehow people have bought into this caricature of a hairy-legged academic with no male partner and no kids who calls women "womyn" and talks about "herstory" instead of history and makes a career of complaining about stuff that's completely disconnected from real life. But that's not really feminism! Feminism means that you can reach for the stars and be what you want to be and when we actually talk to women about what they believe, we still find that women really are still feminists even thought they don't identify themselves as such." And yet here you have this person who has been able to combine professional success and motherhood in a way that many women obviously find admirable and inspiring... but according to the Sistahood "she ain't no woman". The same people who'd be complaining that feminism somehow came to mean this ridiculous stereotype in the popular imagination, are now furious at Palin because she opposes abortion, I guess, or because she goes to church or maybe she didn't stop at the Sistahood-mandated 1.76 children, or doesn't wear lime-green pant-suits. "Hey, feminism isn't just that ridiculous cartoon stereotype, but we object to the idea of some woman who doesn't fit with our political agenda seeking prominent political office." The "Stepford Wife" blast has been made by a couple of people here as well, and I find it utterly baffling. How? Because she's a conservative? Christian? Because she's got 5 kids instead of 1.76? Everything I've read seems to indicate that she is the exact opposite of the term "Stepford Wife" in the way that the term is normally understood. -k

I think the Liberal party's response to the Harper "tragedy" joke is about right: feigned outrage. People see this as an opportunity to score political points, not as an actual issue. Of course, that when Chretien was making that knee-slapper, it was after Canadian students had actually been pepper-sprayed. (Of course, it's hard to get too upset when bad things happen to anti-globalization protesters. I came face-to-face with that sort of thug at protests when I lived in Ottawa.) -k

I was referring to the comments made by Ontario Loyalist, who certainly did seem to be suggesting "the Jews" are some sort of unified entity. -k

This thread certainly took an odd turn... The Asper family may be Jewish, but they are not "the Jews". "The Jews" are not a monolith, or some kind of cabbalistic organization with a unified voice. if there were one issue where "the Jews" are largely in agreement, I am guessing that it would be firm support for the continued existence of Israel; I don't think the CPC has an exclusive monopoly on it. Back on topic: Stephane Dion is the man with the Midas Touch: everything he touches turns to mufflers. So what's the problem... His english? It is painful listening to the guy try and express himself; I am not sure if it is because he has a shaky grasp of english, or if it is because he is a lousy communicator. Perhaps a fluent speaker of french could help clarify this: is he as lousy a communicator in French? Is he as awkward at expressing his ideas in his native language? Jean Chretien spoke english like an a punch-drunk boxer. However, he had no trouble getting his point across. Partly because he had confidence, I suppose, but mostly because he never tried to explain anything very complicated. Anything that couldn't be explained through elementary school level explanations, he didn't explain. Any complicated explanations were left to cabinet ministers, or on the website, or "in de Red Book." Chretien would have never tried to explain the Green Shift. He'd talk about the Green Shift in broad generalizations that made people people feel confident. Dion's problem is partly that he's trying sell people on things hat are beyond his ability to articulate, beyond his ability to make appealing. He's an egghead, trying to explain a plan people are skeptical of, in a language he doesn't speak, to people who'd by and large be happier hearing Chretien talk in vague generalizations using elementary-school language. -k

A little overdramatic, don't you think? I realize you're very concerned, but I don't yet see a reason to believe this is becoming the Hindenburg sized disaster you're anticipating. The "Liberal brand" (as people are fond of saying) is very resilient. It survived Adscam and Gomery, I'm sure it can survive Stephane Dion, who is not a bad person or a crook, just a poor communicator. Barring a turnaround, I think the Liberals will spend another term in opposition, choose a new leader, and reassess where they stand nationally. I think the party has good connections, concerned people who will work to ensure it survives, organizers and loyalists who still know how to raise money and recruit candidates. Maybe some longtime Liberals are disenchanted at the moment, but I don't think it'll be permanent. I think the Liberals will survive. -k