I cannot get Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ("AOC") out of my mind.
New York, city and state, had a deal with Amazon. Part of the deal involved relief from state and local land use regulations (that entail a lengthy, exhausting, and expensive review process), environmental review, and various building regulations. You should know, a lot of building regulations mean what you think they mean: let's make sure the building doesn't fall down on people's heads. And, a lot building regulations are a horror of extortionate giveaways to special interests. E.g., for many years, exhibitors at the Jacob Javits Center had to pay union electricians, at their exorbitant rates, to plug their lights and computers into wall outlets. Probably, Amazon did not want to deal with the extortionate shit, so they extorted back.
Mainly, to build their second headquarters in NYC and bring in 25,000 well-paying jobs, Amazon would get tax abatements to the tune of $3 Billion.
Upon hearing of Amazon pulling out of its deal with NYC, AOC walked up to a microphone, flashed her million dollar smile, and exuded happiness and victory. She thinks tax abatements means there is a pot of money, sitting somewhere in the mayor's office, and that our mayor would actually give Jeff Bezos $3 Billion (in 10s and 20s). And now the deal is off, these $3 Billion are available to hire teachers, repair the subway system, and "put a lot of people to work, if we wanted to."
Sooner or later, if it has not happened already, somebody will wonder, "Why wouldn't we want to?" Why haven't we used this money already? What are we waiting for? The subways need fixing why haven't we fixed them? The schools need teachers, why haven't we hired them? The mayor of NYC, Bill de Blasio, a self-described socialist, why does he leave that pot of money just sitting there? Why does he not use it for the betterment of the people he represents?
In contemplating this question, AOC can proceed in one of two ways. One, she could think that, perhaps, she misunderstands something and proceed as a college educated woman should, to disabuse herself of some uncommonly stupid ideas (there is no pot of money in a closet of the mayor's office). Or, she could see "enemies of the people" hiding under every bed.
Since 1917, when V.I. Lenin took power in Russia, murdered the royal family, and murdered more Russians in his first six months of power than the Tzars killed in the previous 100 years, socialists have never re-considered their world view. With the utter certainty of religious faith, socialists Know they have the key to human happiness. And when their plans do not work out (they NEVER do, since they are based on false ideas), the only possible explanation is sabotage by "enemies of the people".
They start by killing a few people. As their failures continue, as their frustrations mount, as they become habituated to murder, they kill more and more and more. That is how Stalin killed more Russians (more than 20 million) than Hitler, how Mao killed way more Chinese (about 60 million) than Tojo, how Pol Pot killed one quarter of the entire Cambodian population (about 2 million), and how Nicolas Maduro has made some three million Venezuelans run from starvation.
The socialists Know they are right, and they will kill and kill and kill until you get it right. And that is what I see in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's million dollar smile.
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Wednesday, February 13, 2019
Abortion Is Like A Car Accident
Working through the reproductive choices modern American women actually have (my previous essay) was a fascinating exercise, for me. A revelation, really. As always, every answer raises new questions.
If women have this blizzard of reproductive choices, how does an unplanned pregnancy happen, in the first place? On a hunch, I googled “unplanned pregnancy alcohol” and “risky sex alcohol”. I.e., I’m guessing that booze has something to do with it.
A 1984 study says, "Nah". But, this seems impossible since the widely accepted number is that 25%---yes, 1/4---of all pregnancies are unplanned. Note, this study is old and small.
Digging further, I found this item from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health,
Other studies come to the same conclusion. E.g., "Binge drinking leads to unwanted pregnancies."
Clearly, alcohol and, probably, other drugs contribute to the shocking rate of unplanned pregnancies. In other words, unplanned pregnancies are a lot like “DUI”, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Interestingly, in October, 2017, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, reported (it’s a PDF download)
“alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities accounted for 28 percent of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the United States in 2016.”
So, 25% of all pregnancies are unplanned, and alcohol is involved; 28% of all driving fatalities involve alcohol...unplanned pregnancy sure does look a lot like DUI. And, people get killed in both cases.
In real life, even if they are not killed, a lot of people do not just walk away from a car accident. Many people suffer permanent, life-altering injuries. Spinal cord injuries could mean partial or complete loss of the use of arms or legs. I knew a young woman whose head went through a windshield, and she lived with permanently impaired short-term memory. Death and disfigurement. The horrors, of car accidents, are legion.
Now, consider the following thought experiment. Suppose John survives a car accident, but he is seriously and permanently injured. Given the bizarre nature of his injuries, doctors could cure him completely, but they would have to kill somebody else to do it, some innocent third party. Should John and his doctors proceed?
Is that a bizarre or irrelevant thought experiment? I think that is pretty much what an abortion is all about.
One of the great apologies for abortion is that a baby permanently changes a woman’s life. For many young women, this change is deeply unwelcome. It could mean not going to school, not getting a better job. If the father is not involved, an unplanned child could doom the mother to a lifetime of poverty. The consequences of an unplanned pregnancy are serious.
But, kill the baby---an innocent third party who was not even at the party---and all her disabilities are cured. Just like John, from the thought experiment.
If women have this blizzard of reproductive choices, how does an unplanned pregnancy happen, in the first place? On a hunch, I googled “unplanned pregnancy alcohol” and “risky sex alcohol”. I.e., I’m guessing that booze has something to do with it.
A 1984 study says, "Nah". But, this seems impossible since the widely accepted number is that 25%---yes, 1/4---of all pregnancies are unplanned. Note, this study is old and small.
Digging further, I found this item from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health,
“A study of drinking habits and sexual behaviors of heterosexuals found that women and men who frequently combined alcohol use with sexual encounters were generally less likely to use condoms during sexual intercourse...and so on.
“In 1998, an estimated 400,000 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 had unprotected sex after drinking alcohol, and an estimated 100,000 had sex when they were so intoxicated that they were unable to consent (Hingson, et al., 2002). In a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 23% (5.6 million) of sexually active teens and young adults ages 15–24 in the USA reported as having had unprotected sex because they had been drinking or using drugs at the time.”
Other studies come to the same conclusion. E.g., "Binge drinking leads to unwanted pregnancies."
Clearly, alcohol and, probably, other drugs contribute to the shocking rate of unplanned pregnancies. In other words, unplanned pregnancies are a lot like “DUI”, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Interestingly, in October, 2017, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, reported (it’s a PDF download)
“alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities accounted for 28 percent of all motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the United States in 2016.”
So, 25% of all pregnancies are unplanned, and alcohol is involved; 28% of all driving fatalities involve alcohol...unplanned pregnancy sure does look a lot like DUI. And, people get killed in both cases.
In real life, even if they are not killed, a lot of people do not just walk away from a car accident. Many people suffer permanent, life-altering injuries. Spinal cord injuries could mean partial or complete loss of the use of arms or legs. I knew a young woman whose head went through a windshield, and she lived with permanently impaired short-term memory. Death and disfigurement. The horrors, of car accidents, are legion.
Now, consider the following thought experiment. Suppose John survives a car accident, but he is seriously and permanently injured. Given the bizarre nature of his injuries, doctors could cure him completely, but they would have to kill somebody else to do it, some innocent third party. Should John and his doctors proceed?
Is that a bizarre or irrelevant thought experiment? I think that is pretty much what an abortion is all about.
One of the great apologies for abortion is that a baby permanently changes a woman’s life. For many young women, this change is deeply unwelcome. It could mean not going to school, not getting a better job. If the father is not involved, an unplanned child could doom the mother to a lifetime of poverty. The consequences of an unplanned pregnancy are serious.
But, kill the baby---an innocent third party who was not even at the party---and all her disabilities are cured. Just like John, from the thought experiment.
Monday, February 11, 2019
A Woman's Right To Choose 2
Responding to my essay, “A Woman’s Right To Choose”, a friend recommended the documentary, "Lake of Fire", which seems not to be streaming anywhere so you have to buy the DVD. I bought the DVD.
“Lake of Fire” is a pretty good documentary on some of the issues of abortion, so it is beside the point of my first essay. I was not exploring issues of abortion.
Abortion is a major front in the Culture War we have been fighting most of my life. There is an ancient sentiment that “Truth is the first casualty of war”. The Left frames this battle as one of “reproductive choice”, I have long felt there is something insincere about this framing, and I wanted to think about it. Writing is how I think about a subject, hence the essay.
“Framing” is a synonym for “spin” is a synonym for propaganda. My only purpose was to deconstruct one element of the Left’s propaganda on abortion. I.e., I was examining the propaganda about abortion, not the issue of abortion. It was, for me, a very useful exercise.
Unless someone can punch holes through my argument (I welcome the effort), I was amazed to realize (it seems so obvious, now) that modern American women have a veritable blizzard of reproductive choices. And not trivial choices, but choices that are astonishing in scope and consequence. Choices that are personally and civilizationally consequential.
So, whatever else the issue of abortion is about, it is not about the spectrum of women's reproductive choices. It is about something much narrower.
This thought exercise also enabled me, for the first time, to think about abortion in its pristine nature, free from the encumbrances and obscurities of social, legal, and moral issues. I.e., never mind all that other stuff, what, exactly, does abortion accomplish?
Abortion, per se, does one thing only: it ends a pregnancy. But, every pregnancy ends. To put it more precisely, therefore, abortion shortens the term of a pregnancy.
Most women discover their pregnancy around 5 or 6 weeks into it, sometimes later. Some obese women may not know they are pregnant until they give birth.
The CDC reports that 91.1% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. In the second trimester, 7.6%. And 1.3% in the third trimester. Since 24.6% of all abortions are performed within the first eight weeks, it follows that 66.5% of all abortions are done in the third month of the pregnancy.
I think it is fair to say that a large majority of women save, at most, six months of pregnancy by getting an abortion. Abortions in the second trimester might save a woman three months or so. And third trimester abortions will save---days?
Six months is not a trivial amount of time to put one’s life on hold, if that is necessary. But, the exact consequences of such a delay must vary widely, from woman to woman. In some cases, a six month delay might be onerous, in others, hardly at all.
Some might argue that abortion is not about a six month delay in getting on with your life. Once the baby comes, the woman is committed for some eighteen years. But this raises the obvious question: why is a woman more willing to kill her baby than give it up for adoption?
I leave these questions to the reader.
“Lake of Fire” is a pretty good documentary on some of the issues of abortion, so it is beside the point of my first essay. I was not exploring issues of abortion.
Abortion is a major front in the Culture War we have been fighting most of my life. There is an ancient sentiment that “Truth is the first casualty of war”. The Left frames this battle as one of “reproductive choice”, I have long felt there is something insincere about this framing, and I wanted to think about it. Writing is how I think about a subject, hence the essay.
“Framing” is a synonym for “spin” is a synonym for propaganda. My only purpose was to deconstruct one element of the Left’s propaganda on abortion. I.e., I was examining the propaganda about abortion, not the issue of abortion. It was, for me, a very useful exercise.
Unless someone can punch holes through my argument (I welcome the effort), I was amazed to realize (it seems so obvious, now) that modern American women have a veritable blizzard of reproductive choices. And not trivial choices, but choices that are astonishing in scope and consequence. Choices that are personally and civilizationally consequential.
So, whatever else the issue of abortion is about, it is not about the spectrum of women's reproductive choices. It is about something much narrower.
This thought exercise also enabled me, for the first time, to think about abortion in its pristine nature, free from the encumbrances and obscurities of social, legal, and moral issues. I.e., never mind all that other stuff, what, exactly, does abortion accomplish?
Abortion, per se, does one thing only: it ends a pregnancy. But, every pregnancy ends. To put it more precisely, therefore, abortion shortens the term of a pregnancy.
Most women discover their pregnancy around 5 or 6 weeks into it, sometimes later. Some obese women may not know they are pregnant until they give birth.
The CDC reports that 91.1% of abortions are performed in the first trimester. In the second trimester, 7.6%. And 1.3% in the third trimester. Since 24.6% of all abortions are performed within the first eight weeks, it follows that 66.5% of all abortions are done in the third month of the pregnancy.
I think it is fair to say that a large majority of women save, at most, six months of pregnancy by getting an abortion. Abortions in the second trimester might save a woman three months or so. And third trimester abortions will save---days?
Six months is not a trivial amount of time to put one’s life on hold, if that is necessary. But, the exact consequences of such a delay must vary widely, from woman to woman. In some cases, a six month delay might be onerous, in others, hardly at all.
Some might argue that abortion is not about a six month delay in getting on with your life. Once the baby comes, the woman is committed for some eighteen years. But this raises the obvious question: why is a woman more willing to kill her baby than give it up for adoption?
Thus, the objective observations end and the moral questions
begin:
- Is a human life worth six months of your time?
- Why is a baby easier to kill than to give up for adoption?
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
A Woman's Right To Choose
I would like to say a word about a woman’s reproductive choices.
In the U.S., an adult woman can choose to marry, or not. If she wants to marry, she can marry whomever she wants, male or female.
An adult woman can choose to have sex or not, whether she is married or not. If she is not married and chooses sex, she can have sex with whomever she wants, male or female.
If she is married and chooses to not have sex, she may not stay married, but that would be part of her calculation.
If a woman wants to have sex but not get pregnant, she has a cornucopia of contraceptive choices. She can choose permanent contraception or temporary contraception. Sterilization is a permanent form of contraception. There are a couple of options here, too.
If she choose a temporary form of contraception, she can choose physical barriers, chemicals barriers, and hormonal barriers. Physical barriers are the male condom, female condom, diaphragm, IUD, cervical cap, and the cervical sponge.
Spermicidal jelly is a chemical barrier.
Hormonal barriers come as pills, implants, patches, and injections.
Contraception methods may be combined. Eg, a spermicidal jelly may be used with a cervical sponge. Also, some IUD’s release a hormone. There are many possible combinations.
Finally, there is the “Morning After” pill, which exists in a gray area between contraception and abortion.
An American woman can choose to get pregnant, whether she is married or not. And, she can get pregnant whether she has sex or not.
If the woman wants to get pregnant without sex, she has at least two choices: artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization.
A woman can choose to have a baby, without carrying it, by hiring a surrogate for the pregnancy.
If a woman delivers a baby, she can choose to keep it or not. I am not saying the decision is easy, but there is most definitely a choice.
There is finally, this question: can a pregnant woman kill her baby to force an early end to her pregnancy? Do keep in mind that every pregnancy ends, in nine months at the latest, so the question is entirely one of convenience. Opinion is divided.
Clearly, when it comes to reproduction, American women have a blizzard of choices. Does anybody else think it is strange that a major political movement is motivated by this one need for abortions of convenience? And, they claim to fight for “reproductive choice” as if, without abortions of convenience, none of the other choices matter.
In the U.S., an adult woman can choose to marry, or not. If she wants to marry, she can marry whomever she wants, male or female.
An adult woman can choose to have sex or not, whether she is married or not. If she is not married and chooses sex, she can have sex with whomever she wants, male or female.
If she is married and chooses to not have sex, she may not stay married, but that would be part of her calculation.
If a woman wants to have sex but not get pregnant, she has a cornucopia of contraceptive choices. She can choose permanent contraception or temporary contraception. Sterilization is a permanent form of contraception. There are a couple of options here, too.
If she choose a temporary form of contraception, she can choose physical barriers, chemicals barriers, and hormonal barriers. Physical barriers are the male condom, female condom, diaphragm, IUD, cervical cap, and the cervical sponge.
Spermicidal jelly is a chemical barrier.
Hormonal barriers come as pills, implants, patches, and injections.
Contraception methods may be combined. Eg, a spermicidal jelly may be used with a cervical sponge. Also, some IUD’s release a hormone. There are many possible combinations.
Finally, there is the “Morning After” pill, which exists in a gray area between contraception and abortion.
An American woman can choose to get pregnant, whether she is married or not. And, she can get pregnant whether she has sex or not.
If the woman wants to get pregnant without sex, she has at least two choices: artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization.
A woman can choose to have a baby, without carrying it, by hiring a surrogate for the pregnancy.
If a woman delivers a baby, she can choose to keep it or not. I am not saying the decision is easy, but there is most definitely a choice.
There is finally, this question: can a pregnant woman kill her baby to force an early end to her pregnancy? Do keep in mind that every pregnancy ends, in nine months at the latest, so the question is entirely one of convenience. Opinion is divided.
Clearly, when it comes to reproduction, American women have a blizzard of choices. Does anybody else think it is strange that a major political movement is motivated by this one need for abortions of convenience? And, they claim to fight for “reproductive choice” as if, without abortions of convenience, none of the other choices matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)