No, this isn't about the Al Smith dinner, though that was funny too. This is about his appearance on Ellen last week.
I don't know if he had the questions in advance or not, but if not, I'm really impressed (much moreso than the Al Smith dinner). I thought he was hilarious, and it seemed completely off-the-cuff to me.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Respect in the Abortion Wars
Pro-choice people view the name "pro-life" as toxic. They prefer to call them "anti-choice". Pro-lifers have total disdain for the name "pro-choice". They prefer to call them "pro-abortion" (and occasionally, "anti-life").
Both of these are disrespectful and, in my opinion, ridiculous. Both sides are constructing straw-man arguments. Pro-choicers argue:
Pro-lifers argue:
These arguments are both ridiculous. The names imply none of these things; they refer to positions on the central abortion argument. No matter how you slice it, the abortion argument boils down to which you believe is more important: the mother's right to choose what to do with her body and life after pregnancy has begun, or the unborn child's right to have a chance at life. Other sub-arguments ("a single cell is not a life", "the child can be born and then put up for adoption", etc.) are all related to this central argument, and while they're worth talking about, they don't change what the main conflict is. The names reflect the two sides of this conflict, and nothing more.
I am pro-choice (by a hair), but I know that both sides have extremely compelling arguments, and to manufacture this type of disrespect is to show complete disdain for the intelligent people on the other side.
Both of these are disrespectful and, in my opinion, ridiculous. Both sides are constructing straw-man arguments. Pro-choicers argue:
The name 'pro-life' implies that we are somehow against life. Any intelligent person knows this is ridiculous. We just believe that this decision should be up to the mother.
Pro-lifers argue:
We are for 'choice' as well, and we believe that legal abortions don't give the babies much 'choice'.
These arguments are both ridiculous. The names imply none of these things; they refer to positions on the central abortion argument. No matter how you slice it, the abortion argument boils down to which you believe is more important: the mother's right to choose what to do with her body and life after pregnancy has begun, or the unborn child's right to have a chance at life. Other sub-arguments ("a single cell is not a life", "the child can be born and then put up for adoption", etc.) are all related to this central argument, and while they're worth talking about, they don't change what the main conflict is. The names reflect the two sides of this conflict, and nothing more.
I am pro-choice (by a hair), but I know that both sides have extremely compelling arguments, and to manufacture this type of disrespect is to show complete disdain for the intelligent people on the other side.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Applying to Google
I just applied to Google. Definitely my dream job, especially if I can work at the Cambridge office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
