You who are not-me suck

12 06 2011

I’m not much of a fan of the “all people not-me are stupid/evil/greedy/hypocritical/whatever” mode of observation, nor do I think much of the name-calling (sheeple, Repugs, libruls, etc.) which passes for witticism these days.

That said, there are those whose words and deeds do indicate a specific cast of mind which justly be called contemptuous of their fellow citizens:

1. Those who, like Rick Santorum and those who put up billboards blaming “the abortion industry” for killing black and Latino babies and every fucking politician who’s ever advocated, voted for, or signed into law mandatory fetal ultrasound,and bullshit non-medical medical scripts regarding the status of the fetus and the made-up [as opposed to real: there are real] risks of abortion, clearly do not think women matter.

Do not believe we can think.

Do not believe we know what’s going on in our bodies.

Do not believe we are capable of thinking about the future.

Do not believe we possess any decision-making powers whatsoever.

Do not think our lives matter.

On this last point, I give you Senator John McCain and his air quotes when talking about the health exception for abortion, and, even more recently, the former senator and current (or almost) presidential candidate Rick Santorum:

SANTORUM: When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, “Why don’t we just ban all abortions?” Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective.

A “phony exception”: that’s nice. Because no woman has ever risked either her health or her life, has ever been disabled or killed as a result of a pregnancy or delivery.

(I do have to note this delicious bit of turnaround, however: the very same Hyde Amendment which prevents federal funding for abortion also bans states from blocking funding for abortions to terminate pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.)

2. The attitude of Paul Ryan and all the supporters of his budget plan, as well as those at the Heritage Foundation who proposed that the feds

Eliminate marriage penalties from federal programs. Married couples tend to be better off financially than their single or cohabitating counterparts. Policymakers should encourage such beneficial economic decisions by removing financial disincentives to marriage from tax and welfare policies.

As Matt Yglesias pointed out, “the basic logic seems badly flawed. Married people are better off than unmarried people, so we need to give the married people extra subsidies?”

The logic, however, is impeccable: those who have more should get more, those who have less should get less.

In both cases, there is a smugness regarding not only the rightness of one’s position but also contempt for those on the short side of that position.

Goddess knows leftists can be smug and contemptuous Fuck that. It’s late and this is a rant and I ain’t got the patience for a game of spin-the-sinner.

Stomping on people with less power than you in order both to keep them powerless and to remind them of your power over them says less about them than you. It says you’re contemptible.

It says you suck.

h/t Matt Yglesias, HuffPo, ThinkProgress



5 responses

12 06 2011
13 06 2011
13 06 2011

By topic…

1) The saddest thing is that these people don’t seem to realize that you can’t legislate reality. There will always be cases where there is a need or a desire to terminate a pregnancy, and no matter the laws, people will find a way. The choice we have to make as a society is whether we want it to be safe, clean and legal, or something done in a back alley. For all these people claim to be high on “morals”, attempting to force things to the latter route seems the most inhumane.

2) Well, as a single person, I sometimes feel like I’m punished enough. Single supplements on trips. Higher car insurance rates. Etc. Annoying.

13 06 2011
13 06 2011

@gh: That’s one of the oldest arguments in political theory: the Platonist idea of creating a society in which all members conform to a ideal Form, or an Aristotelian idea in which the ideals and practices can vary across time and place.

Clearly, I am an Aristotelian.

As for the punishments of the single: yeah. I wrote a post awhile back in which I argued that single folk ought to be able to authorize friends to visit us in the hospital, etc., and without having to visit an attorney. It ought to be enough for someone to say “I designate this person ‘family’ for x, y, and z purposes.”

@dmf: Ooh, a bioethics dust-up! Always fun! Especially when you have some acquaintance with the dusters!

I think IRB review and clinical ethics are two of the three areas in which bioethicists can have any impact whatsoever (the third is in the writing of clinical research regs)—all the rest of it is so much hand-waving—so it’s unfortunate, but hardly surprising, to see folks fighting over this scrap of territory.

Oh, and having read about the dex controversy when it first hit, I tend to think Hilde et. al. had it more right than their critics.

As for AJOB, well, it’s AJOB: making bioethics safe for the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: