A selection of things found round the interweb this week.
In recent years, support for legal abortion has waned, which Lord attributes to the growing power of Christian fundamentalists: “We, like the good citizens of Iran, live in what amounts to a theocracy.”
A great article from Womens’ Enews showing how the media on abortion has been skewed to promote the anti choice agenda.
“Not one op-ed discussing abortion on the op-ed page of the most powerful liberal paper in the nation was written by a reproductive-rights advocate, a pro-choice service-provider or a representative of a women’s group,” reported the Prospect. “Instead, the officially pro-choice New York Times has hosted a conversation about abortion on its op-ed page that consisted almost entirely of the views of pro-life or abortion-ambivalent men, male scholars of the right and men with strong, usually Catholic, religious affiliations. In fact, a stunning 83 percent of the pieces appearing on the page that discussed abortion were written by men.”
Well isn’t that special! Nothing like equal time. [Read more…] about The Optics of abortion
It would seem a weekly event the thread asking for definition of progressive, asking who would not fit under the big tent. No answer was ever forthcoming except that the owner and mods did not feel it their place to determine what people wrote on their blog.
Self definition of progressive then seemed to be the criteria for fitting under The Big Tent.
Blogging for F4J – acceptable, maligning female politicians [see numerous posts on Belinda Stronach]- acceptable, adhering sexist and politically derogatory labels to feminists [again see PB diaries around abortion,Elizabeth May]- acceptable, debating a womans’ right to choice [many blogs, tags-abortion,Elizabeth May]- acceptable, defaming a persons reputation and all who associate with him – acceptable.
Whether or not Roberts’ post was wrong has been discussed throughly, what I would like to know is how it was worse than any of the previous examples?
The Big Tent is either Big enough to handle and accept all sides of a controversy and to allow free speech OR it moderates views and speech.
If PB has decided on the latter will we soon be in receipt of a policy clearly defining the progressive views and values the mods and owner find acceptable?
A policy on what will be acceptable blog topics, words used, groups and/or persons that can be maligned freely?
It would seem echo chamber is in the eye of the beholder.
… for nothin’ left to lose.
Me and Bobby McGee
What is the concept of freedom?
Is it something cute to wrap the flag around during political speechifying.
Is something to be doled out in measured doses in order remind us that is it there but we don’t want to wear it out. Something like company linens.
Perhaps freedom is accounted to the few and the many are given a facsimile of, fredum..you can buy it on the corner in New York.
There is much to lose if we do not see freedom as the one of the cornerstones of a just and civil society.
There have been times, such as the Witch Trials, when people were given a label to which there was no defence. Given trial in which there was no justice. And perfectly nice people, friends, neighbours rushed to give evidence all the better to disassociate and save themselves.
It is disheartening to realize that we have forgotten so much history.