Inspired by a True Story

Announcement

Inspired by a True Story is temporarily on hiatus while I devote my energies to a new web project I'll be revealing soon.

A Quality Comment from Concernedfeminist

I don't have time to answer this comment right now, but when I get a good comment from someone who passionately disagrees with me, I like to highlight it.

Concernedfeminist left this comment on the first Aliza Shvarts post below.

She says:

To assume that the reasons her professors and advisers approved of such a project is because of their secular, pro-choice views is just as naive as Shvarts's belief that her actions will draw attention to the political nature of art. What she has done has actually (quite irresponsibly) undermined whatever gains prochoicers have made in the past few decades. She's conflating a woman's right to choose with destruction of her own body, further engendering stereotypes of pro-choice advocates as advocates of serial murder. Unless her politics are aligned with anti-abortion advocates, she hasn't done anyone any favors.

Ninety percent of the comments I recieve from people who disagree are little more than insults or poor attempts at parody.

Concernedfeminist seems able to rise above that kind of thing to be a person capable of real conversation. How refreshing.

She lied...maybe

Late yesterday,  Yale University issued a statement saying abortion artist Aliza Shvarts told them she was never pregnant and never induced any abortions.

It wan't a lie, they said, but "performance art."

So, it seemed the matter was settled.

Now, however, Schvarts is sticking by her story and claiming:

I’m not going to absolve them by saying it was some sort of hoax when it wasn’t...I started out with the University on board with what I was doing, and because of the media frenzy they’ve been trying to dissociate with me. Ultimately I want to get back to a point where they renew their support because ultimately this was something they supported.

Shvarts does admit now that she can not be certain she was ever pregnant. "The nature of the piece is that it did not consist of certainties," she said.

Aliza Shvarts, Abortion and Art

Our culture's commitment to abortion,the hatred so many young women feel toward their own bodies from coming of age in a hypersexualized society and our educational elite's loss of all moral direction come together today in a single story.

Over a nine month period, Yale senior Aliza Shvarts repeatedly got herself pregnant and aborted her child "as often as possible."  Her abortions were the do-it-yourself kind. She used herbal supplements to induce her abortions while she lay in a bathtub.

Why did she do this? Well, for an art project, of course.

From the story:

Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process.

Shvarts... said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages....

The display of Shvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.

The mind nearly boggles.

No doubt, Shvarts has been schooled in the romantic tradition of the arts that claims art must be "transgressive" to be significant.  She probably wanted to earn the respect of her teachers by creating a project that would shock the sensibilities of the philistines and hillbillies.

Unfortunately, she has succeeded. Every voice lifted in outrage against her behavior will likely be taken by her and her mentors as a pat on the back, confirmation that they were right all along.

Only a young person could have done this. Only they have the right mix of niavete and recklessness. When she is older Shvarts will wonder who her children might have been. The regret will break her or harden her. Either way, it won't be good

Shvarts said she has no concerns about the physical effects of the abortions, because the potions she used were herbal. Again, only a young person would be so niave to believe this kind of behavior won't exact a spiritual, emotional and, ultimately, physical price.

The real culprits here are those who encouraged and permitted this. Professors and teachers who should have seen the desire to engage in this project as a signal from a seriously troubled girl were instead blinded by their own secular, pro-abort philosophy. As a result, they gave their grinning approval to a young woman's self-destructive behavior and to the destruction of her children. They should be ashamed of themselves, and would be, except that they are no longer capable of feelings so backward as shame.

NOTE: Jill Stanek points out the Yale Daily News article repeatedly uses the term "forced miscarriage" and makes a point I have made in the past. She says:

I don't know why proponents have such a hard time with the word ABORTION.

Yeah, you have to wonder.

Tricia Walsh-Smith and the Collapse of Marriage

It's no secret that marriage among the cultural and artistic elites is in even worse shape than among the general culture. If you doubt me, check out any copy of US Weekly or People or any of a number of publications tracking the sizzle of celebrity romances and their flame out divorces.

Now, British actress and playwright Tricia Walsh-Smith gives us a first hand look inside the crumbling of one of these marriages. The story has all the elements of modern, built for disaster marriages: bitterness, adultery, angry stepchildren and, of course, the pre-nup.

Walsh-Smith, no doubt, resides in a sub-culture that derides all the traditional convictions about marriage, that scoffs at fidelity and chastity. Still, the pain she's experiencing is obvious. This culture has robbed her of the ability to describe her husband's behavior in moral terms. She has no moral ground on which to stand and declare the break up of her marriage to be wrong. All she has is her sorrow, a video camera, and a hunger for revenge. As you'll see clearly in the video, none of these is enough.

More Thoughts on Roemer and the Politics of Abortion

As I continued to ponder Tim Roemer's endorsment of Obama, I was struck by the significance of this quote:

Roemer told MSNBC that :

Despite his opposition to abortion, ... he has come to believe that the all-or-nothing approach that both parties have advocated over the years has created gridlock across the policy spectrum, from health care to international policy.

My point in this post is that Roemer believes abortion is not an all or nothing issue. He sees room for compromise.  Somehow, he thinks this makes him part of the solution to America's political gridlock.

People like me are the problem, he thinks. We keep on acting as if we think it's not okay to kill ANY babies. Roemer rightly sees that those who refuse to compromise on this question, who refuse to consent to the murder of at a least a few babies are part of what creates this country's political polarization.

He's right too that the polarized political environment creates gridlock. The issue of abortion makes the typical give and take of politics impossible for many, many people. Our nation's political life then becomes forever suspended between two poles populated by crowds unable to work together. Meanwhile, everything in the middle falls apart or is manipulated by those without scruples for their own ends.

Roemer is wrong, however, when he implies pro-lifers ought to be willing to compromise, ought to be willing to approve the murder of some children for the sake of easing political tensions. It is precisely these political tensions we in the pro-life movement ought to be seeking to increase. We ought to increase them to a point where they are unbearable. Let everything else fall apart. Maybe then our government will act.

Such tension and unrest is the natural consequence of making murder official national policy. Political gridlock, indeed, decay of our entire political life is to be expected.  No nation can commit itself to this kind of evil and expect to thrive. The only way out is to change the policy causing the conflict.

For Roemer to suggest otherwise is shallow and self-serving at best and, at worst, a betrayal of the pro-life movement and the children it seeks to defend.

After Retail, What?

For years, the architects of the global economy have claimed all the American manufacturing jobs lost to nations with cheaper labor would be replaced in other sectors of the economy.

Many people who once worked the line for a decent wage, found themselves taking low-paying jobs in retail.

Now, where are those people supposed to work, I wonder.

From the New York Times:

Since last fall, eight mostly midsize chains — as diverse as the furniture store Levitz and the electronics seller Sharper Image — have filed for bankruptcy protection as they staggered under mounting debt and declining sales.

But the troubles are quickly spreading to bigger national companies, like Linens ‘n Things, the bedding and furniture retailer with 500 stores in 47 states. It may file for bankruptcy as early as this week, according to people briefed on the matter.

Well, I guess if worse comes to worst people who used to work at the mall can try sneaking across the border into Mexico. I hear they've got work down there.

Indiana's Pro-Life Democrats Actually More Pro-Democrat than Pro-Life

The battle for Indiana's Democrat delegates has forced some of her "pro-life" democrats to show where their true loyalties lie.  Not surprisingly, they don't lie with protecting the lives of the unborn.

Growing up in Indiana teaches a young man not to pay much attention to presidential primaries. As a kid interested in ideas and the way they played out in culture and politics it was always a disappointment to me that primary races were usually settled long before our state's contest.

Not this year. As Clinton and Obama continue duking it out, they've both had to start campaigning in the Hoosier state.

I'm sure both would rather not. Indiana is a complex state politically, full of seeming contradictions. In national elections she almost always goes to the Republicans. On state and local levels, however, is hard to get elected if you aren't a Democrat.

A mostly rural state, her boundaries are populated by a mix of farmers, urban professionals and more than a few former manufacturing employees displaced by the ravages of globalism, all typically Democrat constituencies.

At the same time, religious sentiment permeates much of the state's culture. Even many non-religious people have little desire to see traditional morals overturned. So, the Democrats, the left-wing party of moral revolution, have to tread carefully.

Some have walked this tightrope as "pro-life" Democrats. Now one of those, former Congressman Tim Roemer, has decided that though he opposes abortion, he just loves Barack Obama the "most pro-abortion candidate ever." Roemer, whose 2005 bid to lead the Democrat National Committee was scuttled because of his pro-life views, has officially endorsed Obama.

It's easy to see why. Roemer simply isn't all that opposed to abortion. Only by deciding abortion isn't a significant enough issue to necessitate a break with his party could a man like Roemer give his moral imprimatur to a man like Obama who has made a career out of opposing even the flimsiest protections for the lives of the unborn.

No doubt, Roemer had hoped the usual pattern would prevail and the contest would have been settled by now. Still, when finally pushed to make a decision, Roemer, who could have easily refrained from endorsing either Democrat, or have endorsed McCain the ostensible pro-life candidate, chose instead to put party loyalty above the lives of children and in so doing betrayed all the pro-life voters who elected him and proved he is not worthy of the great state he once served.

Just a Brief Blankety-Blank Note

Talking to a stranger in the video store last week, I was a bit surprised by how he ended our conversation about some movie he asked if I'd seen.

"I'd be afraid to watch that s--t," he said, and slumped off.

I wasn't shocked to learn people speak that way. It's not that I'd never heard the word before. I was taken aback by the casual way he did it.

If I had spoken that way, I would have understood that by doing so I had given him tacit permission to do so as well. But, I hadn't.

The culture had, and any resistance I might have offered would have been futile. Speaking in degraded terms even in public around strangers is now de riguer. Had I objected, I would have been seen as the backward Philistine, because where once it was considered rude to swear, it's now considered suspect, if not outright offensive, to be bothered when someone else does.

Another Thought on Health Care

One aspect of this debate I have never heard addressed by the defenders of our current system: the enormous failures in business practice on the part of the insurance companies.

These people have so alienated the majority of their customer base, served their clientele so poorly, that many, many consumers are willing to dismantle the industry because they believe they will receive better service from...THE GOVERNMENT.

If customers prefer dealing with the government to dealing with your company, you deserve to go out of business.