Of DVD players and abortion.
Perhaps I have dug too greedily and too deep in the belly of Craigslist, for I have uncovered a pet peeve I didn't know I had. DVD player reliability, motherfucker. Let me explain: I would like a DVD player. I need it for cheap, because only on occasions few and far between do I light my blunts with Benjamins.
So first, I scoped out the new frugal options. Most of them (especially the $30 Magnavox at Wally World) had serious reliability problems, and were consistently dying right around the time their three-month warranties expired (particularly when used frequently). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this was as big a problem a few years ago. Both of the DVD players that my family has have been in our possession for at least three years (one for probably five), and are still chugging along. Granted my sample size is pathetically small, but by these standards, the new crop doesn't seem up to spec.
Does it have something to do with miniaturization? Sounds a little weird, I know, but I keep thinking of a point my friend made once. He said something like, "It feels like we're getting to the point where, because of the increasingly massive amount of information on discs, scratches and other damage become all the more harmful because they have the potential to wipe out so much more data." I wonder if there's credence to that, the idea that the new DVD players just can't take the physical trauma / rigorous use that they did in prior product generations because they're inherently more fragile. Not because they're manufactured with shitty components, but because they're so damned tiny.
That being said, I've read a number of superb blog posts recently (a few of them by our own virginia_fell) about abortion. Particularly about how the McCain/Palin ticket not only doesn't care about women's rights, but believes it a moral imperative to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Now, after finding out about how my mother had two potential older siblings aborted and nearly being aborted myself, I've got a chip on my shoulder when it comes to this issue. I don't think I'll ever view abortion as right, per se (in cases not pertaining to incest or rape, of course). If that makes me a bigot, then I guess I am one. However, I would never, EVER be in favor of taking away the rights women have when negotiating the course of their pregnancies. The belief that abortion is wrong and the belief that it should be illegal are two very different things. One belief pisses certain people off, but the other kills women. Additionally, the plain fact of the matter is that even if McCain and Palin do overturn R v W, it's not like abortions will magically cease: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_/ai_n25332334
I very much enjoyed a point virginia_fell made about philosophy vs. fact regarding the issue. That is to say, the conservative ticket in this election believes that staying true to a philosophy (abortion is always wrong and shouldn't happen, no matter who gets hurt) is more important than fact (many women will experience emotional and physical trauma, as well as possible death in unsafe abortions). The only reasoning I can see behind their attitude/potential decision is that McCain/Palin don't think abortion is a right women should have. Why? Because denying a child the right to life is wrong. I agree, fully and completely.
But Josh, you exclaim, doesn't that mean you should be macking on the GOP's probable course of action? No. And I'll tell you why.
I choose to fight the religious right on their own ground on this one. Let's suppose that the Christian God is real, and that abortion is a grave sin against Him. However, the choice to ultimately have that abortion lies with the woman who's having it and no one else. Thus the sin would be the woman's and no one else's, a matter to be negotiated between God and the woman in question.
B-but what about MY responsibility to PREVENT that horrific course of action, say the concerned citizens of the GOP. To this I say: a forced moral choice doesn't constitute morality. When the choice becomes "have the unwanted baby or potentially die," as opposed to "have the unwanted baby and live, albeit with crippling expenses," the "choice" isn't a choice at all. And if the Christian God is real and He cares about things like abortions, you better fucking believe he cares about the motivations for having or not having them. For isn't it written that He knows the desires of our hearts? By the logic that so many of the far-right swear by (all sin holds equal weight, iniquitous hearts are just as bad as condemnable actions), having a baby and secretly desiring to have it aborted is as bad as having the abortion itself. I refer here to Matthew 18:8-9: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." That is to say, to give just one of many possible examples, that if you see an attractive, unwed person and desire to have sex with him or her, your eyes have brought you into the realm of sin. Even if you do not have sex with the person, your eyes have still condemned you to hell. Needless to say, that's a pretty fucking hard line to walk.
Of course, in practice, things are a bit different. The Christian far-right doesn't really believe that actual abortions are only as grave as a course of action that takes place only in a woman's mind, as evidenced by their desperate attempts to overturn R v W. Clearly the action of abortion is worse than the thought of it or the wish for it, but that fact calls the philosophy in the Christian Gospels into question. And for political candidates who love them some philosophy over fact, this is nothing but devastatingly problematic.
So first, I scoped out the new frugal options. Most of them (especially the $30 Magnavox at Wally World) had serious reliability problems, and were consistently dying right around the time their three-month warranties expired (particularly when used frequently). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this was as big a problem a few years ago. Both of the DVD players that my family has have been in our possession for at least three years (one for probably five), and are still chugging along. Granted my sample size is pathetically small, but by these standards, the new crop doesn't seem up to spec.
Does it have something to do with miniaturization? Sounds a little weird, I know, but I keep thinking of a point my friend made once. He said something like, "It feels like we're getting to the point where, because of the increasingly massive amount of information on discs, scratches and other damage become all the more harmful because they have the potential to wipe out so much more data." I wonder if there's credence to that, the idea that the new DVD players just can't take the physical trauma / rigorous use that they did in prior product generations because they're inherently more fragile. Not because they're manufactured with shitty components, but because they're so damned tiny.
That being said, I've read a number of superb blog posts recently (a few of them by our own virginia_fell) about abortion. Particularly about how the McCain/Palin ticket not only doesn't care about women's rights, but believes it a moral imperative to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Now, after finding out about how my mother had two potential older siblings aborted and nearly being aborted myself, I've got a chip on my shoulder when it comes to this issue. I don't think I'll ever view abortion as right, per se (in cases not pertaining to incest or rape, of course). If that makes me a bigot, then I guess I am one. However, I would never, EVER be in favor of taking away the rights women have when negotiating the course of their pregnancies. The belief that abortion is wrong and the belief that it should be illegal are two very different things. One belief pisses certain people off, but the other kills women. Additionally, the plain fact of the matter is that even if McCain and Palin do overturn R v W, it's not like abortions will magically cease: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NNR/is_/ai_n25332334
I very much enjoyed a point virginia_fell made about philosophy vs. fact regarding the issue. That is to say, the conservative ticket in this election believes that staying true to a philosophy (abortion is always wrong and shouldn't happen, no matter who gets hurt) is more important than fact (many women will experience emotional and physical trauma, as well as possible death in unsafe abortions). The only reasoning I can see behind their attitude/potential decision is that McCain/Palin don't think abortion is a right women should have. Why? Because denying a child the right to life is wrong. I agree, fully and completely.
But Josh, you exclaim, doesn't that mean you should be macking on the GOP's probable course of action? No. And I'll tell you why.
I choose to fight the religious right on their own ground on this one. Let's suppose that the Christian God is real, and that abortion is a grave sin against Him. However, the choice to ultimately have that abortion lies with the woman who's having it and no one else. Thus the sin would be the woman's and no one else's, a matter to be negotiated between God and the woman in question.
B-but what about MY responsibility to PREVENT that horrific course of action, say the concerned citizens of the GOP. To this I say: a forced moral choice doesn't constitute morality. When the choice becomes "have the unwanted baby or potentially die," as opposed to "have the unwanted baby and live, albeit with crippling expenses," the "choice" isn't a choice at all. And if the Christian God is real and He cares about things like abortions, you better fucking believe he cares about the motivations for having or not having them. For isn't it written that He knows the desires of our hearts? By the logic that so many of the far-right swear by (all sin holds equal weight, iniquitous hearts are just as bad as condemnable actions), having a baby and secretly desiring to have it aborted is as bad as having the abortion itself. I refer here to Matthew 18:8-9: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." That is to say, to give just one of many possible examples, that if you see an attractive, unwed person and desire to have sex with him or her, your eyes have brought you into the realm of sin. Even if you do not have sex with the person, your eyes have still condemned you to hell. Needless to say, that's a pretty fucking hard line to walk.
Of course, in practice, things are a bit different. The Christian far-right doesn't really believe that actual abortions are only as grave as a course of action that takes place only in a woman's mind, as evidenced by their desperate attempts to overturn R v W. Clearly the action of abortion is worse than the thought of it or the wish for it, but that fact calls the philosophy in the Christian Gospels into question. And for political candidates who love them some philosophy over fact, this is nothing but devastatingly problematic.