Monday, October 17, 2011

Lessons from a Mother's Sacrifice

This morning I woke up to see an article about a mother who made a deliberate decision to sacrifice herself in order to have her baby.  The story is tragic, but there's also something very beautiful about the way it expresses motherhood: A mother giving her life to ensure that the child within her would simply have a chance at life.  When you think about it, its almost strange that this article would be newsworthy; Isn't it a given that a mother, or indeed any parent, would sacrifice themselves to save their children?  Deep down, I think most people know this is how it should be:

When Stacie Crimm found out that she had finally gotten pregnant at 41, she was overjoyed. So overjoyed that she knew exactly what to do when faced with the decision of whether to save her life or her unborn baby's, reports.
After she was diagnosed with neck cancer, Crimm decided to refuse chemotherapy. The heroic mom survived long enough to deliver her 2-pound, 1 ounce daughter, Dottie Mae, and hold the baby in her arms, just once.

“This baby was everything she had in this world," Crimson's brother, Ray Phillips told the news outlet.

Unfortunately, this isn't just a tragic-yet-inspirational story.  Every time I'm directed to a HuffPo story I can't help but scroll down and view the comments.  Most of the comments are what you would hope to see, but there's a noticeable number that aren't.  Here are some:

That's not a selfless decision. Now she has left a motherless child, her own parents have lost a child and her husband has lost a wife. I would say that that was a selfish decision. I bet the people would have rather had her get treatment and keep her around then give birth to an undersized baby that will probably have health issues itself.
this was an incredibly selfish this child will be motherless with a considerably lesser chance of a fair shake in society...­a terminatio­n in this case would have been appropriat­e.
That woman is an idiot. She could have lived longer and had another child or adopted a child. Instead she was selfish, kept the baby knowing she needed treatment and now the baby will grow up without a mother.
 That's just ridiculous. Why don't you get better then try to conceive again.

There are many more posts that are like these, but most can't be taken out of the context of the thread they're in.  By no means is this how a majority of people are choosing to express themselves, but (as stated above) its significant enough to make one uncomfortable.  One comment from a particularly terrible serial poster caught my eye:

But when I bring up how the anti-choice crowd uses these stories as propaganda­, suddenly I'm the one bringing in politics..­...sheeeee­eeeeeeeees­h.........­..

It's simply impossible to get away from politics on this issue.  Why?  Because in an age where women are encouraged to kill their unborn children when they are considered an inconvenience, Stacie Crimm's story is incredible.  The woman who posted that comment missed the glaring flaw in her argument:  Pro-Choicers believe that the Unborn are fetuses, not human beings.  When you approach the situation from that perspective then the only logical conclusion is that Stacie Crimm didn't make a heroic decision, but chose to commit suicide.  It's natural for elements of the Pro-Choice crowd to be mystified by this decision since Stacie chose to give up a human life (her own) for a bundle of cells.  That's the logical thought process if you use their perspective, and it also reveals them to be Pro-Abortion, not Pro-Choice. 

Stacie's decision emphasizes the value of the Unborn's life, and calls into question the notion that the Unborn are not people worthy of protection.  The question isn't "Does a mother have a right to abort her child if her life is at risk?",  its something far more fundamental to the entire debate: "Is this unborn child a human being?".  Stacie obviously decided her daughter was a person who deserved a mother's love and protection and a chance at life.

Friday, October 14, 2011

They Claim to Represent YOU

Congratulations!  Whether you knew it, or even approved of it, you are now a part of the revolution/occupation.  One, small segment of the population saw fit to declare that they represent the 99% of Americans who are...making less money than the 1%.  Yeah its pretty much that generic and arbitrary, and if you want to understand anything deeper about why they're doing the things they're doing, you're gonna be out of luck; almost no one seems capable of articulating a coherent argument for why they're there.  But having reasons for doing things is elitist and academic, and clearly I'm just a tool of the corporations.  Rather than reading what I have to say, lets look at how these brave patriots how have stood up to corporations, and who supposedly represent the vast majority of Americans.

Right, well, you can see where this is going.  Here we go:

Because no "American" protest is complete with the anti-Israel argument
Is this how you would dress if you went to a protest?  Would you rely on statements like "End War Now?"  Fun Fact: The world outlawed war in the 1920's.
Apparently 99% of Americans enjoy defecating on symbols of authority, whether that be a cop car or the American flag.
This upstanding citizen is teaching his fellow occupiers how to break out of hand restraints.
Jesus was a Marxist.  If only Karl Marx had given us some indication on how the revolution should feel toward religion.
It doesn't count as violence if they jump on their own, does it?
I'm assuming that they're trying to equate people who work for corporations and banks to Nazi's.  Because helping people make deposits is the moral equivalent to putting people in ovens.
99% of Americans are Socialists, Communists, or otherwise friendly toward that ideology.
Not only was he forced to go to school, but he had know idea beforehand that he'd have to take loans, didn't know that tuition was going to be so expensive at the school he was attending, and probably didn't know his gender studies degree was worthless.  Actually that last point probably is true.
Its common for Americans to body paint topless women.
And certainly common for Americans to walk around topless with a sign that only makes sense if you don't think about it too much.
Being dirty and leaving piles of trash everywhere is also very American.

It should become abundantly clear that these people don't represent 99% of Americans, and I'd be shocked to discover if they even represented the 21% of Americans that identify themselves as liberals (as opposed to the 40% that identify themselves as conservatives).  In fact looking at these images highlighted just how arrogant and offensive it is for the people to walk around claiming to be part of a figure that includes myself when, as someone put it, "The only thing we have in common is nationality."  To make matters worse, pictures don't even tell the entire story:

Lured by cheap drugs and free food, creepy thugs have infiltrated the crowd of protesters camped out in Zuccotti Park for Occupy Wall Street, The Post has learned.

“I got warrants. I’m running from the law,” boasted Dave, 24, a scrawny, unshaven miscreant in filthy clothes from Stamford, Conn. “I’m not even supposed to be here, but it’s as good a spot as any to hide.”

Wanted for burglary, the drug-addled fugitive said some of his hard-partying pals clued him in that the protest was a good place to be fed, get wasted and crash.

But as the protest ground on for a 23rd day, it was evident that there were challenges.

Zuccotti Park smelled like an open sewer -- with people urinating and defecating in public.

And some couples have taken advantage of the free condoms distributed by organizers to do the nasty in full view of other protesters.

“It kinda makes me think of what Woodstock must have been like,” said one protester, Sarah, 19 from the Upper West Side.

“I haven’t hooked up with any guys ... but one of my friends did have sex in a tarp with a guy last night.”

The free chow offered to protesters was boosting the crowd.

“People say they are here for the cause, but the real reason is the free food,” quipped Cameron, 26, of Jersey City.

“On my third day, they had smoked salmon with cream cheese. You know how much smoked salmon is a pound? Sixteen dollars. I eat better here than I do with my parents!”

Still not convinced that you should be skeptical about the Wall Street Protesters?  Ok, lets look at some of their demands:

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
A list of completely unreasonable and undo-able demands?  Hmm...

Its been painfully evident to me that this "occupation" is nothing more than a bunch of ignorant, entitled, liberal kids protesting for the sake of protesting.  Not only can they not correctly identify what the problem is, but they can't offer any decent solutions.  And yet they insist upon protesting anyways, because, apparently, having something to protest about isn't necessary when you're young and liberal.  That doesn't mean there isn't something valid buried deep under ten layers of nonsense and human waste, but it does mean that they're acting more on feelings and brainwashing (corporations = bad!) than they are on actual reasoning.  The Tea Party could at least make arguments about the national debt, the socialization of the auto industry, and the attempt to socialize healthcare, but what do these people have?  The same people who complain about CEOs getting a bailout end up backing the man who furthered the bailouts.  That's how intellectually honest they are.  Even the Tea Party targeted Republicans and proved willing to lose races if it meant that the wrong Republican wouldn't get elected.

In fact  the comparison between the Tea Party and OWS is both obvious and painful.  The Tea Party was accused of racism, and a handful of people were found out of thousands of events that included millions of people over years to prove it.  The OWS "movement" has been operating for less than a month in only a few dozen places and already there are multiple instances of anti-semitism documented.  The Tea Party was accused of being dangerous, violent, and hateful, but the protests were largely peaceful.  Meanwhile the Wall Street protesters have had hundreds arrested and clashed with police today.  Palin was held responsible for the Giffords shooting by an incredibly biased media, but that same media says nothing about the "Eat the Rich" signs these protesters are holding up.  The fact that the media is portraying this so positively while they treated the Tea Party so negatively is a huge injustice, but what else should conservatives expect?

The Occupy Wall Street protests are a national embarrassment.  These are people who understand that crony capitalism is bad and that there is a growing aristocracy in our country, but lash out without thinking and end up misplacing their rage.  Just in case you're still not convinced, watch these two videos.  Both are short (2 and 3 minutes, respectively) and both tell a lot about this movement.  Enjoy!

Occupy Wall Street Protester Wants College Paid For Because That's What He Wants

Occupy Wall Street is a Freak Show