Hey Ladies — Ross Douthat Knows What’s Good For You
Shorter Ross Douthat: “Barack Obama’s pitch to women is so weirdly paternalistic. Anti-paternalism, of course, is using state coercion to force women to carry pregnancies to term (while assuming that women do not have the moral agency sufficient to be held legally accountable) while allowing employers to discriminate against women. Also, I will make assertions about declines in the gender gap for which there’s no actual evidence.”
Only privileged white, conservative males know what is good for women, who should not trouble their beautiful minds with such trivial and disreputable enterprises as politics. Much better for them to just leave it to the menfolk.
“We’ll let you know when someone’s being paternalistic, dear. Don’t worry your pretty little head about making that call.”
perfect
I thought his name was Ross Douchehat?
Or as Belle Waring has it, Ross “I’ll Do Anything for Love but I Won’t” Douthat.
Like that. That’s good stuff.
“Hey Ladies-
Ross DouhatScott Lemieux and Barack Obama Knows what’s good for You”.“Hey Ladies – ericincleveland know proper subject/verb agreement.”
Fair point, missed that. oops! Point stands though.
Hey, ladies, you should have control of your own bodies.
Yes, ericincleveland, that’s a radical thought to campaign on in the first decade of the 21st Century.
Missing the point. A male writing a headline implying A)males have no business making policy for women, so B) please suport the male candidate who will make policy for women is ironic.
With Scott’s logic Obama shouldn’t be campaigning on this.
Only one male candidate – Mitt Romney – proposes to make the policy for women.
The other – Barack Obama – proposes to leave the policy up to each of them individually.
You really shouldn’t be talking down to others about their illogic if you can’t follow such an obvious point.
Don’t you try and stop him from fucking that walrus, Joe!
Walruses have needs too!
“Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.” – Napoleon
Are you sure, Maj. Kong? I thought it ws Aron Nimzovitch . . .
Nimzovich was quoting
“The other – Barack Obama – proposes to leave the policy up to each of them individually.”
So Obama will leave pay equity, FMLA type issues, and international womens issues up to the women themselves? I missed that. Or is abortion the only issue that qualifies as a mones issue?
“womens issue” at end got garbled by phone. Don’t want the grammar spelling nazis to come back!
Yes, the people being coerced by the Lily Ledbetter act are the female employees, who are now required to accept equal pay, or sue their employers if they don’t get it. You certainly understand how public policy works.
Barack Obama’s policies on each of those issues have, indeed, been to shift the power more towards women, by reducing the power of those entities (bosses and governments/societies) that were reducing their choice – in the first case by discriminating against women, in the second by limiting their options for leave, and in the third by empowering women.
Three great examples, each and every one of which shows Obama’s commitment to expanding the choice of women. Thanks for bringing them up.
It’s really not. Since Scott is obviously for women supporting a candidate who will largely stay out of their reproductive choices.
A look at who most women are voting for will dispel your point that Obama (and I) are mansplaining. Meanwhile, my point that Douthat seems to have a different definition of “paternalism” than everyone else in the world stands.
This you indeed are.
Nothing about the headline implies, or even suggests, that males have no business making policy for women. Ross Douthat is advancing the classic conservative contrarian view that Democratic policies and campaigning are worse than Republican ones because Dependence! Paternalisms! Freeloading! This is what’s being made fun of. In point of fact, Obama and the Democrats systematically promote policies that are highly beneficial to women. Which pretty much explains the gender gap. Which is large.
It really doesn’t. Since I’m pretty sure Scott trusts women to make health care decisions for themselves.
steamerincleveland has a point.
The one on top of his pinhead.
Ah yes, because “I believe that women have just as much right to make their own decisions regarding their bodies as men” and “I believe that a male-dominated government should be in charge of women” are equally paternalistic views.
But you certainly showed us how above the fray you are!
Much like the headline your argument is illogical.
As for the headline. Ross Douhat or anyone will be wrong or right on womens issues based on their argument, not the fact that they are A) male B)rich/priviledged c) or even conservative.
as for your post
1) “’I believe that women have just as much right to make their own decisions regarding their bodies as men’ and ‘I believe that a male-dominated government should be in charge of women’ are equally paternalistic views.”
I will call the two quotes in your statement A {just as much right] and B [men in charge]. Nobody said B in the article linked. Nor did I say or imply B. Further, nobody argued in favor or against A in the article, though to be fair we kinda know that A is Scott’s position even if we are phrasing it for him. If you want to take down Douhat or me do it, but at least be logical about it in your argument.
In no way am I trying to be above any fray. Bad arguments do as much damage for your position as your opponents can.
Finally, a concern troll who is concerned.
I’ve made Statements that the arguments are illogical. You call me a “concern troll”. Nice.
I support Obama, womens rights, and am prob to the left of most on this site. However, I do not believe that bad arguments are good for the cause. Largely because you have to defend bad arguments putting you at a massive disadvantage. Its like starting every drive at your own 1 yard line.
Concern troll is concerned that his concerns are not being taken seriously. Frankly, based on your own statements, you would not recognize logic if it bit you on the ass.
Concern trolls are always far more concerned about how the argument is framed than the effing civil rights of half the effing population.
That is how we know they are concern trolls. That and the fact that after they pull that crap they declare themselves to be leftier than thou. Criminy!
So on behalf of my half of the population I suggest that you take your effing trollhouse cookie and eff the eff off.
This.
When you resort to things like “You said Obama believes in women’s rights, but how do you know, you’ve never met him! You meant his coalition,” I remember what debate was like in middle school.
Oh, well, if you’ve made capital-s Statements, then all is well!
Then stop using them :) Seriously, you misread Scott’s post and have been scrambling ever since. It’s not helping.
Forgive me – I didn’t realize that every single blog post had to be an in-depth, concise review of the issues and arguments at hand. I thought perhaps we could consider the greater body of work of both authors involved. I imagine that LGM will stop writing these shorter X posts, since they don’t meet an arbitrary set of exacting, pedantic details.
You are, of course, right, but…wouldn’t it be awesome if they all were!!! With footnotes!!!!!
Every comment too…
Snerk. That is all.
He sounds rather, ahem, “concerned”.
I state forthrightly and paternalistically that allowing women control over their own bodies is good for them.
How dare you uphold the Patriarchy!
That’s because Scott Lemieux and Barack Obama, as opposed to Russ Douthat, actually listen to what the ladies have to say.
Unless you know all three personally you have no evidence for either of your statements. And hey, you might the LGM crowd is quite diverse.
Seriously. I know we are all nervous about the closeness of the election, but that doesn’t excuse faulty logic and poorly constructed arguments. I miss a grammar note while posting from a cell phone its all god to snark and insult. But when someone writes a headline and a post with huge logical holes in it apparently its all good.
False. I need only look at their political coalition. In Lemieux’s and Obama’s, women are present in large numbers and in leadership positions, and they lay down the line for the rest of the coalition to follow. I don’t need to know these people personally to know that their position on women’s issues are informed largely by the opinions and insights of women.
I’m not the slightest bit nervous about this election. It’s in the bag. Romney = Saginaw Plaza Hotel. You are making your actual identity quite obvious by making this claim.
And since you don’t seem to understand the basis for my argument, nor the evidence behind it, you’ll forgive me for not taking your charge that it is poorly-reasoned terribly seriously.
“False. I need only look at their political coalition. In Lemieux’s and Obama’s, women are present in large numbers and in leadership positions, and they lay down the line for the rest of the coalition to follow. I don’t need to know these people personally to know that their position on women’s issues are informed largely by the opinions and insights of women.”
Your staement was that they not their coalitions listen to women. For which you have no evidence.
“And since you don’t seem to understand the basis for my argument, nor the evidence behind it, you’ll forgive me for not taking your charge that it is poorly-reasoned terribly seriously.”
You do understand that one can be correcton an issue but still have poor reasoning and flawed logic. For example the argument that Venus is hotter than Neptune because Venus is green is flawed, even if the statement within the argument {Venus is hotter} is still correct.
And by pointing out that they adhere to the position of their political coalition, which is largely set by women, I’ve proven my statement. I can walk you through it more slowly if you’d like.
I haven’t said anything about who is correct about the issue; I’ve pointed out that Scott and Barack Obama’s position is, unlike yours or that of other Republicans, informed by the opinions of women.
“I miss a grammar note while posting from a cell phone its all god to snark and insult.”
You forgot the apostrophe in “it’s.” (This is a joke).
Also, this is a rational enough post. The issue is not that Douthat is a man who has opinions about women’s issues. The issue is that Douthat is a man who has opinions on women’s issues that seem contrary to how women as a group understand them, while also accusing Obama as another man of having a paternalistic attitude when Obama’s opinions on women’s issues are more in synch with those of (many) women.
I missed the second “o” in good too! I need an iphone.
A truly concerned concern troll would say that he would like an iPhone but is unable to support Apple because of Foxconn.
Then he would make pancakes.
And announce his loyalty to some other brand also made with Foxconn labor.
Waffles!
I know we are all nervous about the closeness of the election, but that doesn’t excuse faulty logic and poorly constructed arguments.
Damn — there was just a thread on Crooked Timber about concern trolls that veered off into a meta-discussion into what exactly constitutes concern trolling. This sentence would have been extremely helpful in that context.
Wank on, little troll, wank on. Your sequiturs are non and your logic is ill.
Yes, nothing like some sexually-repressed Catholic pseudo-intellectual, to tell the little ladies who’s paternalistic and who’s not.
Obama – yeah!
Mitt and Ryan and Akins and Mourlock and, etc. – why no! Thanks for asking.
Pope Rat-faced-zinger and the rest if the boy-feckering chorus in the Priesthood – not at all!
I don’t read Douchehat’s moral’s columns. But I must admit, I do get a few laughs when he plays Altar-boy to Pope Brooks on economic issues.
1. Yeah, that column was kind of foolish, but I generally enjhoy Douthat’s columns for being willing to go outside of simple-minded political-correctness and cargo-cult social-science of contemporary liberalism.
2. Nevertheless, you are misrepresenting the column, which has a lot about emphasis as opposed to policy.
3. Douthat includes a link as evidence with his assertion about the gender gap, although I am not willing to defend any conclusions that he draws from that link.
4. If you are against abortion rights (I have convinced myself that I am for abortion rights, if only out of a general sense of loyalty to the Democrats). Not supporting criminal penalties for women who seek or receive abortions may be jusitifed in terms of similar reasoning as allowing abortions in cases of rape etc. The life of the fetus must be protected, but the woman has a special right to the control parts of her own body. She may, therefore, not be prohibited from seeking an abortion, but nobody else may participate in giving her an abortion (obviously, a woman who gives the pregnant woman an abortion would be just as criminally liable as a man who gives the pregnant woman an abortion, so your sexism argument is deeply flawed). (For rape, the issue is that a fetus that is anthropomorphized into having expectations of what it is doing in the womb cannot expect to intrude on the mother if it was not anticipated or at least condoned by the mother through voluntary sexual intercourse and more seriously that the pain of the mother’s relationship with a child conceived in violence would be more painful to the mother than the abortion would be to the fetus, at least an undeveloped fetus that is different from a newborn child in significant ways other than its location inside the womb).
5a. Actually, I remember the real reason why it’s all right to say you are pro-life and still support abortions for rape. It is that any single fetal life (or up to 8 if you are Octomom, I guess) is less important than the woman’s ability to control part of her own body. Therefore, you only restrict abortion to prevent more abortions in the future, so you force woman who have conceived children through voluntary (and inadequately protected) sexual intercourse to give birth as a way of deterring further unplanned pregnancies leading to many abortions. However, that does not apply if the woman had no choice in whether to become pregnant in the first place.
Pro-tip for dudes feigning concern for Lady Rights: don’t refer to women by the disparaging nicknames dreamt up by tabloids. You’re welcome.
Douthat includes a link as evidence with his assertion about the gender gap, although I am not willing to defend any conclusions that he draws from that link.
A link it only useful if it backs up the claim he’s making. Alas, it doesn’t.
not fair! if you make this a requirement,
and maybe even add it for footnotes too, every “conservative” pundit/talking head/blogger/author (and i use the term in its loosest possible sense), will be put out of business! think of all the rubes who’s money won’t be taken, the airwaves that won’t be despoiled, the trees that won’t be cut down!
um,………………..never mind.
I have convinced myself that I am for abortion rights, if only out of a general sense of loyalty to the Democrats
That’s probably the silliest, least defensible reason to be in favor of abortion rights I’ve ever heard.
Actually, it isn’t. It’s basically the same ethical principle which should mean libertarians will all vote for Obama. It’s recognizing that not every aspect of the democratic platform is perfect, but that we still need to vote the lesser of two evils.
It’s basically the same ethical principle which should mean libertarians will all vote for Obama.
While it’s hard to say what Wido Incognitus is actually saying because she or he appears to be a particular verbose kind of nuts, at least to my ears that statement reads like the precise opposite. Lots of people–like me, and some sane/intellectually consistent libertarians–vote for Democrats even though we disagree with them on a number of issues. We don’t change our mind on those issues because we’re voting for Democrats. It’s like saying “I used to be horrified by the staggering inhumanity and needless costs of the drug war, but since I support Democrats and Democrats generally support the drug war, I’ll change my views.”
I think research has strongly suggested that people take cues on policy from the party they support, and that, thus, economic liberals who support the Democrats are much more likely to be open to pro-choice arguments, and vice versa.
Or, more cynically, politics is tribal, and our views of policies just as frequently follow those political allegiances as the other way around.
I’m becoming increasingly annoyed with the “it’s tribal” line. Perhaps Greenwald’s endless misuse of it is to blame…
Of course, given that we have increasingly extreme division of intellectual labor plus increasingly sophisticated propaganda machines (of all kinds), it’s no surprise that people will tend to vest trust where trust has already been given.
I don’t think this is the same as being “tribal”. My impression of “tribalness” is that the primary driver of belief is the mere fact that a position is being advocated by one’s tribe (or not). Republicans exhibit this behavior all the time, to a breathtaking degree. (Just consider the filibuster.) I’d really want to distinguish this from other forms of epistemic dependence.
outside of simple-minded political-correctness and cargo-cult social-science of contemporary liberalism
Yet completely w/in the cult of simple-minded accept-what-the-priest/pope says or you are going to hell Catholicism.
Jesus, every Ross Douthat column can be summed up like this:
1. This issue that I am discussing is complex and has many subtleties.
2. Therefore, whatever the Pope said.
She may, therefore, not be prohibited from seeking an abortion, but nobody else may participate in giving her an abortion….
This is utter nonsense.
…if [the pregnancy] was not anticipated or at least condoned by the mother through voluntary sexual intercourse….
You seem to be unfamiliar with what voluntary sexual intercourse entails. Maybe research the topic a bit before discussing it?
…and more seriously that the pain of the mother’s relationship with a child conceived in violence would be more painful to the mother than the abortion would be to the fetus….
The Imagined Pain Olympics is a poor criterion for determining public health policy.
One of Douthat’s big errors, which all pro-lifers seem to make, is assuming opposition to Roe is a lot stronger than it really is. Yes, many people say they are “opposed” to abortion, especially for allegedly bad reasons. But when you actually ask them about overturning Roe, they object.
If opposition to abortion were popular, you would see Romney talk about it all the time. In fact, every pro-life candidate minimizes the issue and says nothing is really going to change until hearts and minds are changed.
Plus, Roe is consistently supported by 2-to-1 majorities.
Exactly. That’s the important poll. There are a lot of people who treat poll questions on various circumstances that give rise to abortions as essentially an opportunity for moral preening. “Oh, I don’t approve of abortion for THAT!”. Same with polls asking if you are “pro-choice” or “pro-life”. Lots of people who don’t want abortion banned label themselves pro-life.
The key is all the political pros know this, which is why Democratic presidential candidates trumpet their support for reproductive rights and Republican candidates downplay their opposition and talk about changing hearts and minds or focus on some outlying issues (such as “partial birth” abortions or Medicaid funding) while never explicitly saying they would favor a ban on abortion unless they absolutely are forced into it.
All the political pros know this, as I said, and Douthat and other pro-life pundits could clearly find this out if they wanted to by talking to them (or just by observing who runs on abortion as a national issue and who doesn’t). But they’d rather not know– they LIKE telling themselves that abortion is either unpopular or basically a 50-50 issue.
I can’t favor heightening the contradictions on this one (see, Scott, I don’t always favor it!), because the reality is a lot of women’s lives would be screwed up royally and the long term equilibrium we eventually reached would be far less protective of abortion rights than the status quo. (Clearly, many states would ban abortion and there would be unsafe and illegal abortions, some suicides and desperate acts, and a lot of subterfuge in bringing women to states where it was legal. Roe is, for all of its faults, a much better system.)
But there is, I have to admit, a small part of me that would take great pleasure in seeing Douthat and his ilk get their comeuppance if Roe were overturned– they would find out that the politics of banning abortion are very bad indeed for social conservatives, and that this is an issue that they can get away with preening and whining about only precisely because Roe is in place and they have no power to seriously curtail the core right and can only do damage around the edges.
Quite the opposite. You know it’s unpopular, which is why Democrats always use silly euphemisms like “reproductive rights” instead of the policy they actually favor of “abortion on demand.”
Whereas Republican candidates routinely say that they want to ban abortion and then are called “extremist.”
It is nutty, and political science malpractice, to pretend that a question about “Roe” is a more valid statement about what people think about abortion than a question about abortion is.
I favor abortion on demand.
I also don’t think women should be coerced in their reproductive choices, whether to bear and keep, bear and surrender, or abort. There are cases where I would, if in the appropriate position to give advice and were solicited by the women in question, recommend any of those with the middle one being least likely.
There. Democrat and happy to bluntly state my position.
Re; your “oh, the poor dears don’t know what Roe is” line:
56% in favor.
There’s plenty for you to like, however wrongheaded it may be, in the polling, FWIW.
And FWIW, I love love love kids.
I also strongly prefer contraception as a means of family planning, not least because it’s typically physically much easier on the woman. Ubiquitous free contraception is a great thing. More research into contraception would also be a great thing.
People call them “reproductive rights” because in addition to fucking with abortion, said opponents are also trying to limit access to female methods of contraception. Please stop lying.
Lying is all he knows. He is a libertarian after ALL
I absolutely favor abortion on demand for any and all reasons.
Thank you for explicitly agreeing with the point you set out to refute.
Yes, David, you are correct – Republicans who say they want to ban abortion are widely referred to as extremists. You, Scott, and Dilan are correct.
But the issue isn’t about what people think about abortion; it’s what people think about abortion rights.
Your feelings about abortion aren’t a political issue. Whether the government should use force to impose those feelings on women is the political issue – and Roe is a much better measure of that issue than questions about abortion itself. Something like half of the huge pro-choice majority in this country has moral qualms about abortion, but they’re still in favor of abortion rights.
I wish there had been abortion on demand when your mother conceived you. I would have demanded she abort, and the world would be a better place today.
Run along and wank Johnny, this is the adult table.
Because of my commute, I prefer to receive my abortions by podcast rather than on demand. Either one is preferable though to livestream abortions.
Analogous Davey the Authoritarian Libertarian:
Scott, where do you get that? I’d love for it to be true, but the 3 month issue seems to fluctuate a lot in the Harris poll. There’s a consistent majority and often quite a majority and occasionally 2-1, but I’m not seeing that consistently. (Of course, this is jus the first trimester bit.)
(Can I inline a photo?
We’ll see!)
(No! Img tags duly stripped.)
To be clear, if you ask about Roe, it’s generally 2-to-1 or close to that. Asking about first trimester abortions generally produces a majority, although not always 2-to-1.
Interesting. In the Quinnipiac poll, there was 2-1 pro-Roe, and if you looked at the “Abortion should be legal in all/most or illegal in most/all” poll, you got a solid majority (average 54%) all/most abortions should be legal, and an overwhelming majority (80% average) that some should be legal. I wonder how people read “illegal in most cases” and this is what causes the drop (or rise) in the Roe question.
Of course, that’s entirely backwards. When people are asked about the actual issue — abortion — they say they’re opposed. When people are asked about a policy that they don’t know the details of — Roe — they give a different answer.
If abortion rights were really that popular, then there would be no issue with repealing Roe, since abortion rights would enjoy massive legislative support. But you don’t believe that.
How about you provide some actual data to back that horseshit up? Bijan gave one.
The actual issue is abortion rights, if we’re talking about the public policy people support. Something like half of this country’s pro-choice majority are personally opposed to abortion, but that has nothing to do with policy.
The latest polling says that if you ask about abortion, most Americans think it should be legal. Fact free as always.
Bans on pre-viability abortions are not popular, although arbitrary restrictions that fall short of a ban generally are.
With respect to the effects of overruling Roe, we are not governed by plebiscite, a party strongly committed to passing bans on abortion is going to win some elections, and not every state mirrors national public opinion.
As I said, political professionals know the Roe question is the correct question. No Democratic presidential candidate since 1980 has said anything other than that abortion should be legal and Roe should be preserved. Nobody has said anything about changing hearts and minds, or about not having any litmus tests, or changing the subject to peripheral issues. And several Democratic candidates, including Clinton and Obama, have run ads specifically trumpeting their support of the right to choose.
In contrast, every Republican candidate since Reagan has downplayed their opposition to abortion. None of them have run ads saying they oppose Roe in the general election. All of them have denied they have any litmus tests for Supreme Court nominations.
As I said, I am just repeating the view of political professionals on this issue. Democrats run on abortion rights and reproductive freedom, they win. Republicans run on banning abortion, they lose. And I trust their reading of the polls more than I trust yours.
the woman has a special right to the control parts of her own body. She may, therefore, not be prohibited from seeking an abortion, but nobody else may participate in giving her an abortion
So it would be illegal to assist someone else in an activity that is legal, i.e. to assist someone else in exerting her legal rights?
That sounds odd. Are there any analogous legal situations?
I am not saying that I agree with it, or that it is not strange or even strained.
I am not saying that I agree with it,
Of course. That attribution is not intended.
or that it is not strange or even strained.
But the general strangeness of this (potential) argument for the “forced-birth-but-with-exceptions’ position — and of argument 5a — does add to the perception that they are post-facto rationalisations, adopted in an inchoate way after one has already espoused the position, perhaps because it comes as part of tribal membership.
It’s not a case of someone coming upon this argument by rigorous extrapolation from a set of ethical axioms, and thereby finding themselves forced over to the “forced-birth-but-with-exceptions” side.
So (1) relying on rational refutation of these arguments is not likely to work, and
(2) such people still do not deserve any grudging respect for consistency & integrity, such as Erik Loomis (in another thread) concedes to the NO EXCEPTIONS EVAH position.
Suicide?
Illegal, just hard to prosecute.
Ah for the good old days when attempted suicide was a capital crime, and the Brits would nurse a failed throat-cutter back to health before leading him to the scaffold (with the length of the drop re-calibrated to take into account the reduced structural integrity of his neck).
They are getting around that little problem in the US When a pregnant woman fails at her suicide attempt they charge her with child endangerment or murder.
There has also been an effort under way in some states to charge women who experience spontaneous abortion with murder.
These laws regulating the production of human resources will be a positive boon for the prison industry.
This is certainly compatible with the Calvinist / Judge-Death position that Man is irredeemably sinful & fallen, and that everyone is deserving of punishment (the details of the specific
pretextcrime being a minor technicality).which is pretty much the idea.
those privately owned/operated prison beds aren’t going to fill themselves!
Ah for the good old days when attempted suicide was a capital crime
This never happened.
Are there any analogous legal situations?
Introspection reveals that I am in favour of
(1) Allowing people to seek the health care of their choice, and
(2) Prosecuting and imprisoning cancer quacks who prey upon the gullibility born of desperation, charging for “health care” that they know is useless.
This may or may not count.
i don’t believe it does:
by definition, those “providers” are already participating in an illegal act, the knowing provision of known not valid medical care. the care provided by legitimate health care providers, in an abortion procedure, is medically valid and sanctioned, providing it would just become an illegal act.
it was a great day, indeed, an auspicious day, when president frederick douglass freed the slaves … joe christmas and percy grimm were forever grateful as they battled together to knock down fascist warplanes over guernica … and douglass’ vice president and future president, president susan anthony would soon win the day in her efforts to emancipate women from the bonds of chatteldom with legal napalm at the end of the mind … and who can forget, after driving in the golden spike, president hop sing who went on to lead the u.s. into the golden era of criminal justice as an investigative science, thus forever cementing the asian intellectual menance into law enforcement, thus giving us the future fbi director charlie chan and cold case s.o.p.’s… and oh, yes, president cesar chavez, who from the tiny farm pueblos of formerly mexican lands, healed the great rifts of 1968 chicago, quelling the rowdy hooligans with loaves and fishes, and then went on with vice president bobby kennedy to end the vietnam war … and, oh the humanity, let us not forget the civil rights leader orval e. faubus famous dictum: the arc of the moral universe is long but it rollerskates across the level playing fields of america and fast food parking lots … yes reality, reality my fraternal sorority is always in superposition, and as surely as anima pegs its animus, the concern troll is its quanta … gints tigers 2012
[...] discussing their party’s highly unpopular abortion platform whenever possible. Nieporent, on the other hand: Quite the opposite. You know it’s unpopular, which is why Democrats always use silly euphemisms [...]