A Glamour beauty editor enthuses about an improvement of "choice" that is simply eliminating the choices government and health industry officials don't want you to make.
The genius move by CVS is to limit the selection of products so you can't buy "sun care products" with an SPF lower than 15. So you can't get a product like Australian Gold SPF 4 Spray Oil Sunscreen, which "promotes tanning," while "allowing you to stay in the sun up to 4 times longer without burning." What if you're not planning to be in the sun very long? And isn't some sun good for your health? What if I think it is — for the vitamin D — and I'm only going to be out in the sun for an hour? I'm supposed to use SPF 15? It seems to me that withholding products like Australian Gold SPF 4 just forces people to switch to products that aren't "sun care" at all. In the old days — the 60s — girls who wanted a sun tan used plain old baby oil or baby oil with iodine.
It's sort of like the way depriving women of the choice of legal abortions would channel some women into the government's preferred choice of childbearing, but it would drive other women into the baby-oil-with-iodine version of abortion, the so-called back-alley abortion.
I don't think Glamour editors would squee "This is a brilliant way to make smarter pregnancy choices easier." But when it's on some sweet-spot subject — like averting the scourge of dark tanning — it's touted as brilliant to take away choices. And these supposed lovers of brilliance don't notice how unbrilliant they sound when they say taking away choices is making choices "easier."
I don't see the words "sponsored content," but it's such an ad for CVS. It even contains an embedded ad. I urge you to watch this — if you can. Both Meade and I, watching separately, were grossed out at the same point and had to pause for a while before going on. But we watched to the end and had a long discussion about what kind of women respond well to material like this and who the first woman reminded us of.*
___________________
* I'll tell you later. But: somebody famous.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०३ टिप्पण्या:
Isn't the red-haired one Conan O'Brien? Was there a memo I missed?
Leftists always think they are brilliant when using the government to tell other people what to do.
You won't need too much sunscreen, living in your parents basement.
I don't use sunscreen. Can you tell?
Other ordinary products that are used for tanning: cocoa butter and coconut oil.
The author was in college when Obama was running - lets be generous and say that was 2004, not 2008 - and she thinks those werea the bad old days when people sunbathed indiscriminately without knowledge of the dangers of too much sun?
"I don't use sunscreen. Can you tell?"
Ha ha. Neither does Meade.
Now, I'm thinking of accusing Glamour of white privilege. The concern about sun protection varies according to skin color. Some people have more built-in sun protection than others.
It's sort of like the way depriving women of the choice of legal abortions. It would channel some women into the government's preferred choice of childbearing, but it would drive other women into the baby-oil-with-iodine version of abortion, the so-called back-alley abortion.
It's probably a mistake to talk about abortion in economic terms, or to think about it like a commodity or service that we provide. I know that's the way socialists want us to think about abortion. It's just a mistake, a moral error. We are human beings. Economists want to reduce us to consumers. That's just one of the ways economics is a dismal science.
(I think by "dismal science" they mean "hard to predict things," so it's a soft science as opposed to a hard science. But why not say "soft science"?)
I think part of the dismay, why it's a dismal science, is the acknowledgment that by reducing humanity to commerce and money you are missing out on something amazing and cool.
Too many variables. My French-Canadian mother could sit at the beach all day and turn brown as a berry. My Scots-Irish dad would turn red and peel like an old barn after ten minutes. ( Later they both got skin cancer. )
Now, I'm thinking of accusing Glamour of white privilege. The concern about sun protection varies according to skin color. Some people have more built-in sun protection than others.
Hangwringing about skin cancer is most certainly a SWPL thing. White Australians are nuts about it ~ and rightfully so, their rates were horrible for many years. When I lived overseas the Australians wore full body swimsuits and hats. Their campaign, if I remember correctly, was Slip Slop Slap: slip into a suit, slop on sunscreen, slap on a hat. And they did!
I've lived on a Pacific island and now in South Texas, both places with brutal and punishing sun, and Caucasians are the only ones who stress it. Certainly the only ones who worry about sunscreen up north are white folk.
My solution, as I loathe sunscreen, is to stay out of the sun in the summer as much as I can. This is easy because I thoroughly dislike the beach (fistbump to Bill Bryson on that one) and I also hate being hot. Air conditioning and shade are my friend.
So the 'choice' to wear a sunscreen to avoid wrinkles is analogous to the 'choice' to kill your unborn baby?
Please buy more coconut oil!
Mom has a coconut plantation.
Well, actually she sold it, the parts that werent land-reformed, but the owners are nice.
One might also add that if we are going to allow women to harm themselves (both abortion and sun-tanning increase your cancer risk) and others (abortions are so upsetting we feel obligated to hide the bodies), ethical leftists should warn their consumers about the harms. So consumers are full of knowledge, as opposed to ignorance.
If pro-lifers had control of our airwaves, I suspect people would stop comparing abortion to laying out at the pool.
Of course it's men who are at greatest risk because they are considerably more likely to work outdoors. Imagine the commercial and the same dialog with a bunch of construction workers, cowboys, yard care, oil field workers and the like.
Look, in Oregon, practically everyone has Vitamin D deficiency. It's the first thing they check new arrivals for. It's not even as though sunscreen is a thing here; we just always cover up because, wet. (Well, not just at the moment -- we're in for a dry, hot spell this next week. But usually.)
Saint Croix, I think the main meaning of "dismal" is that however you crunch the cookie, somebody always loses. There are other social sciences that can come up with (at least nominal) "win-win" scenarios, but economics, almost never.
It is a remarkably mawkish ad. And all about wrinkles yet.
What a suitable subject for such emotionalism.
Sunscreen will reduce the number of abortions needed...was my take-away.
Bob Boyd!
"Widespread vitamin D deficiency likely due to sunscreen use, increase of chronic diseases, review finds"
Use sunscreen or not?
I might follow medical recommendations, but unless they're obvious ("don't smoke or fall off cliffs"), they're usually incorrect or contradictory (gluten/fat/salt) and it's easier to just ignore them and do whatever.
"Stay pale my friend." - The Most Interesting Woman in the World
In ads pitched to women there's always this limp, sentimental music. Whenever they show a woman drinking coffee, she always cradles the cup in both hands. And you never see a woman drinking a beer.
My advice for my younger self: Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters.
Our elites must direct us for we are passive, mindless victims in desperate need of their all encompassing guidance.
I wouldnt blame sunscreen for vitamin D deficiency.
It seems to me thats way down the list of contributing factors.
I'd put the biggest one as videogames/PCs/social media keeping people indoors when they should be outside.
This is a fad in academia spreading into our culture and politics, the idea that people inherently make bad choices and need "wonks" and "nerds" with "data" to tell them what the right choices are. Lot's of popular books on the subject.
Of course the logical progression is that we need to make it easier for people to make smart choices by restricting their choices.
And who could argue with this? It's so obviously true...like eugenics theories were so obviously true to the same class of people a hundred years ago.
For people who buy into this, Trump's election is a huge proof of their theory. And they conclude that, like sunscreen, we need to limit peoples political choices too.
Economics is almost entirely about win-win, non-zero outcomes, like specialization, comparative advantage and gains from trade.
Accounting and government are about zero-sum identities, debits and credits and take from one give to the other.
It's sort of like the way depriving women of the choice of legal abortions.
Really? Your choice of sun protection is similar to the choice to kill your child?
It would channel some women into the government's preferred choice of childbearing,
How about "It would allow the government to protect the most innocent form of human life"?
but it would drive other women into the baby-oil-with-iodine version of abortion, the so-called back-alley abortion.
Or maybe it would drive women into behaving more responsibly when it comes to sex?
Scots Irish folks really like sun bathing because the deep redness that we get makes it look like we have tanned, for a day or two. Then it becomes pink again and flakes off. But the blonde eyebrows will turn white in one day, and stay white until they grow out. It's our actual white privilege.
As dark as I am, I was very surprised when I found out that had a vitamin D deficiency. 2 of my grandparents were from Sicily. People with genes from the Mediterranean and African areas of the world who live north of Miami FL seem to have the vitamin D deficiency. Not enough sun up here for us.
You're beautiful! You're unique! You don't need to change anything - you're one of a kind in this world! You have infinite worth and value! .............except you need to [buy/shop at/start using][fill in the brand, store name, or product name here].
Very compelling!
I would listen more and love more. I'd greet every day with hope and anticipation, and I'd close every day with gratitude for what good happened. I'd simplify - my wants, my needs, and my daily plans - so I could spend more time with my family and friends. Hemorrhoids - you want to get those check out early. I'd deal with my hemorrhoid issues faster, and not keep them hidden in the dark.
Hard to hide the pop in that message - it is right out there front and center.
Picture this: a native American Indian walking on a sandy beach and seeing two sun bathers, then cut-shot and we see a few more sun bathers, then the Indian turns his head and the camera pans back, and you see he is standing on a large beach, which could be in Southern California or Florida, and it is covered with sunbathers, and then after a long slow panning shot of the human carnage, the camera comes in close, and you see a tear form in the eyes of the Indian.
Touching. This will change a nation.
(Get this, Ann, we publish a version of the Bible, but we sell full page color ads for various products. Top price, of course, would be a full page color spread in the middle of the Beatitudes.)
It is good to be blessed by God. It is better to be blessed by Resurrection Skin Care Products - your salvation from a life of neglect
I really think we're on to something.
(And make sure and get the strategic planning folks to start working those jingles and messaging lines which tie products to the primitive passions we'll all feel in an existential world war.)
Sun exposure increases skin cancer, but decreases overall mortality. In fact, a study of Swedish women found that the mortality of the most sun avoiding non-smokers is the same as the most sun exposed smokers. The sun exposed non-smokers had the best outcomes.
Avoiding Sun as Dangerous as Smoking
I have read the actual journal article referenced in the link (and others) and they are a stunning rebuke of the sun phobic "experts" including dermatologists. It is true there are more melanoma deaths with more sun exposure, but there are many more deaths from other causes due to avoiding the sun.
Sunlight is the enemy of the snowflake.
I didn't see anything about hemorrhoids, have they edited the ad? I suppose they would be wise to do so. Or else what was it that disgusted Meadehouse?
Julia Roberts?
I Have Misplaced My Pants:
"(fistbump to Bill Bryson on that one)"
Ah, Bryson, the author of my all-time favorite sunburn description:
"I peered past her into the mirror behind the bar. Looking back at me, mockingly attired in clothes to match my own, was a cartoon character called Mr. Tomato Head. I allowed myself a small sigh. For the next four days I would be a source of concern to every elderly Western Australian and of amusement to all else."
I have been that guy. More than once.
what kind of women respond well to material like this and who the first woman reminded us of.
I'm not going to watch the video, but based on the still frame I'll guess Lieawatha Warren.
Sun block won't prevent hemorrhoids. Hemorrhoids grow where the sun never shines.
So think about that before you buy a high SPF product.
Saint Croix, I think the main meaning of "dismal" is that however you crunch the cookie, somebody always loses.
In socialism you always lose, because you're always splitting the pie.
In capitalism they talk about making the pie bigger. More pie!
Consider also the long view. You are richer than John D. Rockefeller.
I think an undue focus on money is what makes it dismal. Marx was obsessed with money and people died. Blackmun wanted to abort the poor away. Greed is dismaying (of course), as is the idea that we're all selfish, all the time, and it's the only thing you can count on.
I think most of the dismal side of economics comes from the left. There are, of course, notable exceptions. But when I think of happy economists? I think of this guy.
High five to Bob Boyd @9:24am and to Gahrie @9:48am.
Also my mind went directly to Gwyneth Paltrow but I have no real basis for why.
Do they have a hyperactive five year old for a cameraman or is there a name for that technique?
You are not richer than John D Rockefeller.
Modern technological advantages are selected without regard to the whole picture. Just a few -
- The first, stupidly obvious point, is that JDR had the priceless satisfaction of power. He could tell thousands to go, and they goeth.
- He also had infinite access to human craft and artistry, which in this day is far more expensive than in his. He could have his stonework carved in such a way that is priceless today, and is protected by heritage laws.
- He, and his, bred descendants in large numbers, he was far more likely to have posterity than people of this age, even modern billionaires. They were confident of a future, then.
It's sort of like the way depriving women of the choice of legal abortions. It would channel some women into the government's preferred choice of childbearing, but it would drive other women into the baby-oil-with-iodine version of abortion, the so-called back-alley abortion.
I spotted this immediately as Althouse trolling her commenters.
It worked.
The most dismal of economists was Schumpeter, not at all a man of the left. And he was the best prophet.
Lena Dunham?
I can remember when people would go "bake" in the sun for hours, it supposed to be healthy to have a deep tan. People would make fun of the old Victorians for caring Sun umbrellas and wearing big hats.
Now, people can't go outside with SPF 15.
LOL.
My wife's Asian friends are complete sun-phobes. They're obsessed with keeping their skin light and undamaged by sunlight.
Making women get pregnant is a huge net positive for population growth, looking at it dispassionately, purely as mathematics. You may have a slightly increased casualty rate (though maybe not, as it should, among other things, reduce female cancer rates), but the net increase in people would be vastly greater.
I spotted this immediately as Althouse trolling her commenters.
I did, too, Tank, but I bit anyway. :-(
Asians have been obsessed with having white complexions centuries, or perhaps millenia, before they ever saw a European. You will see this in the Chinese classics, "Journey to the West" and "Red Chamber", also "The Tale of Genji" of course.
The best thing about a very white blonde woman, is that you can tell when they're starting to get dirty.
Caitlyn Jenner.
I did two rounds of Effudex treatent for pre-cancerous lesions. Arms, bald head and face. Sunscreen sucks! Effudex is torture. Thank God, no cancer.
AllenS said...
The best thing about a very white blonde woman, is that you can tell when they're starting to get dirty..
It usually happens in their late 20's to mid 30's.
OK, I am very fair and quit wearing sunscreen years ago because of vitamin D. I'm not a sunbathers but I'm outside a lot so end up with a light tan by fall and I'm STILL vitamin d low. Not deficient but my Dr still recommended a supplement. And I drink whole milk. This is a white issue. Black people have denser bones and don't demineralize as fast. It's one of the reason milk is being associated with white supremacy. Black don't need vit d as much and aren't as lactose tolerant. Of course it's completely absurd that that makes milk racist but this is an absurd time.
Yes, it is almost sure to cause more harm than good. It isn't like the consumer doesn't already know that you need SPF 15 or better to get proper UV protection, and there are definitely consumers who specifically don't want that much UV protection, and they are very likely to either stop using sunscreen altogether because it doesn't fit their requirements any longer.
A good analogy would be to push for the elimination of bullet-proof vests that don't cover the entire body.
Whenever they show a woman drinking coffee, she always cradles the cup in both hands.
Speaking of womany advertising clichés, don't forget the ever-popular Peaceful Yoga Pose, to show she's got her life together.
SPF doesn't matter. (As much. Only to burning if you can't tan as easily).That's UVB protection. But UVA is more damaging. There is Avobenzone and even less stabilized compounds, but the best way to keep it out is ecamsule ("Mexoryl", marketed in overseas products by L'Oreal). Failing that, you can use titanium dioxide, but that's a strong physical blockade that you can't rub into the skin and make the residue vanish as easily.
"I did two rounds of Effudex treatent for pre-cancerous lesions. Arms, bald head and face. Sunscreen sucks! Effudex is torture. Thank God, no cancer."
Not surprisingly, given her other problems, my partner had several rounds10-15 years ago. And then Mohs surgery to her nose 2-3 years ago. Blames it on her mother sending her 5 kids to the pool all day throughout the summer in Las Vegas to get them out of the house. She got her mother's pale skin with her father's French features, while her next sister has the opposite, inheriting her father's ability to be out in the sun all day with no harm, turning a nice golden brown. Now days, we spend summers far enough north that the sun really isn't an issue.
Partner still thinks that she has y(darkish) blond hair, but that really depends on the sun bringing out the blond highlights, which really hasn't happened that much in the almost 20 years that we have been together. I guess that she could lather herself up with SPF 250 sunscreen, and go out in the sun a bit. But she hates sunscreen, and is (of course) allergic to most of them. Which means that she really doesn't have blond hair any more, and mostly hasn't as an adult, but continues to lie about it on her driver's license. But when I point this out to her, she reminds me that I still put Gray for hair color on mine. At least my weight is now a couple pounds below what my license shows (down from maybe 20 lbs over).
Buncha white wymyn engaging in blatant racial appropriation, trying to look like Hispanics, meztisos and octoroons.
Whenever they show a woman drinking coffee, she always cradles the cup in both hands.
***********
Worse when they show cucks doing the same, only with their hands protected against the heat by ragged and too-long sweater sleeves.
Gah!!!
I thought of Julia Roberts, too. And I thought the opening was the most disgusting of the vignettes. Also- the last one made no sense for their pitch. The woman says her wrinkles are the map of who she is, so why should she be using sunscreen?
So, up til the sunscreen advice, the old gals recommend Daily Affirmations.
I think women are plenty sold on themselves as it is. They won't shut up about it.
Speaking of womany advertising clichés, don't forget the ever-popular Peaceful Yoga Pose, to show she's got her life together.
Then they show her manipulating an expensive camera to show that she's hip and artistic.
So, up til the sunscreen advice, the old gals recommend Daily Affirmations.
I think women are plenty sold on themselves as it is. They won't shut up about it.
Amen to that, Carol!
Nervous white chicks respond well to this kind of stuff. Middle-to-upper-middle American women are the freest, most powerful women in human history, yet they need to be reassured (by a commercial!) that they are "enough," just as they are.
"It's probably a mistake to talk about abortion in economic terms, or to think about it like a commodity or service that we provide. I know that's the way socialists want us to think about abortion. It's just a mistake, a moral error. We are human beings. Economists want to reduce us to consumers. That's just one of the ways economics is a dismal science."
I am talking about rhetoric, not economics. I'm talking about using the word "choice" when choices are being restricted. It's like Newspeak in 1984. They won't saying we're taking away choice. They say they're improving choice, making it "easier." It's like I'll make him an offer he can't refuse. That's not an offer. That's coercion. It's basically a joke, but a joke that's not funny to those who are getting their choices limited.
Those who think abortion is wrong could concentrate on persuading women to choose life because it's better, not taking the choice away. But if you are for depriving women of the choice, you aren't going to be believed if you assert it's actually a brilliant way to improve choice, making it easier.
I don't know why you're sidetracking into economics. I think it's because you just don't want to hear what I'm saying.
I'm always a bit disgusted, and sometimes even quite alarmed, at what Althouse chooses to inflict upon us.
The first woman's mannerisms remind me a bit of Samantha Bee.
No one is anywhere near the celebrity that first woman reminds me of.
And actually, the person she reminds me of isn't the same as the person she reminds Meade of. But it's the same married couple. She reminds me of the husband and Meade of the wife.
"It's basically a joke, but a joke that's not funny to those who are getting their choices limited."
And yes, I know, the fetus never laughs.
Jennifer and Ben?
"My solution, as I loathe sunscreen, is to stay out of the sun in the summer as much as I can. This is easy because I thoroughly dislike the beach (fistbump to Bill Bryson on that one) and I also hate being hot. Air conditioning and shade are my friend."
"Now you may find this hard to believe, given the whirlwind of adventure that has been my life, but in all my years I had been to American ocean beaches just twice - once in California when I was 12 and managed to scrape all the skin from my nose by mistiming a retreating wave as only someone from Iowa can and diving headlong into bare, gritty sand, and once in Florida when I was a college student and far too intoxicated to notice a landscape feature as subtle as an ocean."
A human life evolves from conception. When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain the right to life?
Is normalization of elective abortion the lesser evil?
The Pro-Choice doctrine is the underlying philosophy of [class] diversity (i.e. denial of individual dignity, institutional racism and sexism), congruence schemes (e.g. selective exclusion), elective wars (other than for defense), immigration "reform" (e.g. insourcing, antinativism), and clinical cannibalism (debasement of human life for secular profit).
Unlike the choice of sun screens, abortion affects another life, intimately, by depriving her of human status. An elective abortion is used to deem life unworthy. Its depraved principles and effects are not limited to the confines of an abortion chamber.
Economics is called the "dismal science" because of the Malthusian proposition that resources (e.g., food) are finite and therefore there is a natural limit on population growth (see "neutrally cruel universe"). Supply-side" economists disagree. This is the basic divide in modern political economics. Put another way, are there 3 inputs to production (resources, capital, labor) or is there only 1 (capital, which can buy the other 2)?
Calista Flockhart
I don't think Glamour editors would squee "This is a brilliant way to make smarter pregnancy choices easier."
Certainly not over a measure to make it harder to abort.
But say there were a measure to make it hard or impossible for teenage mothers, or women carrying a child suspected of being disabled, to carry to term. A measure to make abortion the only available choice in these circumstances.
If that happened, I do believe they'd be squeeing their hearts out over it. In exactly those words, too: "A brilliant way to make smarter pregnancy choices easier." As with the sunscreen, "smarter" is code for "the choices we want people to make".
---
Of course, there's a lot of pseudoscience in this sunscreen business.
I also live in western Oregon, where it's cloudy most of the year, and it's far enough north that much of the year you don't get enough UV flux to make vitamin D anyway because the sun is too low in the sky. I have ice-white skin, so I prefer to wear a mild sunscreen on my face to tone down the sun a little without losing all the benefit. (I don't burn as easily as you'd think to look at me... but I don't tan at all. Heartbreaking summers when I was a teenager proved this. Weeks of afternoon-long sunbathing sessions with just Coppertone oil, and I wouldn't even get a tan line, much less a tan.)
Unlike these mooks at Glamour, I am aware that sunlight is a necessary thing for health, and that "slather on sunscreen that's as powerful as possible" is a bad, unhealthy approach to venturing outside.
Those who think murder is wrong could concentrate on persuading murderers to choose life because it's better, not taking the choice away.
Those who think rape is wrong could concentrate on persuading rapists to choose not to rape because it's better, not taking the choice away.
"It is well-established that governments can increase welfare by providing public goods and addressing market failures such as externalities, asymmetric information, and market power. In practice, governments also regulate to address “internalities” – that is, costs we impose on ourselves by taking actions that are not in our own best interest. An internality might arise when agents act to obtain short- term benefits, or to avoid short-term costs, even though that action produces long-term net costs for those very agents. When this happens, there may be a “behavioral market failure,” adding to the standard catalogue of justifications for regulatory action."
Hunt Allcott and Cass Sunstein here: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/16150609/RegulatingInternalities-1.pdf?sequence=1
People (not just women) cannot be allowed to make unrestricted choices, because they are just too stupid.
Finally clicked on the link and read the article.
What she's talking about is regret.
Of all the regrettable things I did in college—having a long-distance relationship senior year, skipping an Obama campaign rally to do homework, any of the Alpha Kappa Lambda guys—tanning is far up there on the list.
It took a few sketchy moles, a trip to the emergency room because of second-degree burns (from the sun and the oil!), and some really, truly humiliating sorority rush photos to finally get a grip on what derms have been saying for years: Sun protection is crucial.
Here's an older woman talking about the deep regret she feels about her abortion.
Bernard Nathanson is another powerful example. Dr. Nathanson was the founder of NARAL. After performing thousands of abortions, he became a pro-lifer. In his case, it was the ultrasound that made him see what he was doing. That's also what happened to Abby Johnson.
St. Croix, I think ultrasound has done more to stem the frequency of abortions than has any other tool or program. And to the 'Pro-choicers', I would ask: Tell me at exactly what stage of fetal development does the fetus become a human being? You can't, because the human being at two weeks gestational age is the same human being it is at nine months.
Molly:
cannot be allowed to make unrestricted choices, because they are just too stupid
Then there is no one qualified to make any choice.
The reality is that each human begin is characterized by a constellation of physical attributes and mental traits. It is the rare human being that has, if not a perfect, then an optimal means and grasp of reconciling moral, natural, and personal imperatives, under all circumstances. The goal of reconciliation is then not to expect perfection but to promote its pursuit (i.e. strive). That is an internally, externally, and mutually consistent criterion for classifying behaviors for normalization, tolerance, and rejection, in order to promote the individual and general Welfare.
CVS is the shittiest pharmacy I've ever used.
jaed:
"slather on sunscreen that's as powerful as possible" is a bad, unhealthy approach to venturing outside
A clear coat of the epidermis that restricts respiration and natural Vitamin D synthesis from cholesterol. So, moderate exposure and consumption to keep the doctor away.
St. Croix, I think ultrasound has done more to stem the frequency of abortions than has any other tool or program.
One thing we could do is improve our sex education classes. Your sex education is incomplete without watching the National Geographic special, In the Womb. Pro-lifers ought to push this. And if public schools continually fail to educate our young, churches need to pick up the slack.
n.n. at 3:32 pm. I see your point, and I guess I need to correct my sloppy terminology: The little people cannot be permitted to make unrestricted choices because they are just too stupid; Ivy League trained government bureaucrats must make those decisions for the little people, or at least use regulations to limit choices excluding the "bad choices".
But I'm still waiting for this to be applied to choices made by sophisticates: for example outlaw activities like skiing or mountain biking because people doing those things don't truly comprehend the risks to themselves associated with their decision to do those activities.
Whoever that first lady reminds Ann and Meade of, she reminds me of my first wife, and the hell with it.
Molly:
First, I will remind you that intelligence is poor evidence of goodness. The people with lower intelligence, whether by nature, nurture, or choice, may actually have a better grasp of how to reconcile moral, natural, and personal imperatives (i.e. "goodness").
Second, one of the variables in the equation we hope to reconcile is personal imperatives. So, this requires us to tolerate a broad spectrum of behaviors that may be dysfunctional, even dangerous. The issue then becomes how to manage risk and distribute its cost. Most behaviors are not suitable for normalization (i.e. redeeming value for community, society, humanity), but can be reasonably tolerated when individually assessed.
So, we have an organic society (e.g. classical liberalism, capitalism), a religious/moral philosophy (e.g. Judeo-Christianity) to guide development and temper expression, and competing interests to mitigate the risk of individuals and groups that may run amuck.
Religious/moral philosophy acts as suppressant, albeit voluntary, which may evoke a rebellious orientation when liberally applied. The rule of thumb is moderation to keep the honest people honest and discourage generational rebels from reacting with sanctimonious rage.
While risk varies in quantity and quality, it is an intrinsic property of this world. Let me suggest a perspective where life (e.g. reproduction) is an exercise in risk management. Do what you can to reasonably mitigate it, but you will never remove it without consequence.
ultrasound has done more to stem the frequency of abortions
The more you know... and cannot deny.
St. Croix opines:
One thing we could do is improve our sex education classes. Your sex education is incomplete without watching the National Geographic special, In the Womb. Pro-lifers ought to push this. And if public schools continually fail to educate our young, churches need to pick up the slack.
In our current public schools this is highly unlikely to happen. Showing a a fetus to be a human being is the last thing the Progs want. As for Pro-lifers pushing a new educational agenda, some of us have done just that, lobbying for a law requiring viewing of fetal ultrasound videos or the film you mention before deciding on an abortion. I think most women who see them and learn the facts will opt out.
I haven't looked yet to see if it's been revealed, but I think she looks like Laura Linney.
Men would totally answer this differently.
Along the lines of, "Bet on Mike Tyson to win in the 1st round almost every time."
Or, "Invest your money in the stock market and leave it there until about 2000. Mostly Nasdaq. Then take it all out."
I wear SPF 50 several times a day: sweat it all out too. Along with electrolytes.
But I prepare, Hell, just ate some quacamole for extra potassium.
I AM SMART. FREDO WAS SMART TOO.
Watching The Wizard over Oz they would have preferred sun to the dirt blowing everywhere.
I am talking about rhetoric, not economics. I'm talking about using the word "choice" when choices are being restricted. It's like Newspeak in 1984. They won't saying we're taking away choice. They say they're improving choice, making it "easier."
Althouse, she's talking about one drug store chain, CVS. So if you insist on making abortion analogies, it would be like Planned Parenthood deciding to stop doing surgical abortions. Now they only do pill abortions. Other abortion clinics are free to keep doing surgical abortions.
For instance, a month ago I bought a bottle of Coppertone (SPF 8) at Harris Teeter.
So my suntan lotion choices have not been limited by the state. They have been limited by one private actor, making its own choices. The upshot to me is that I might have to drive a little farther.
Suppose the doctors in a small city all agree that abortion is bad for women, bad for society, bad for families, and bad for their own medical practice and peace of mind. They don't want to perform abortions. They're tired of pretending that stabbing a small baby to death is the practice of medicine. They don't feel like pregnancy is a sickness or disease. They feel like "elective" surgery is an abuse of their medical skills and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. All these doctors in this city have gone pro-life, and they're not interested in performing abortions, and they refuse to do it anymore.
This limits the choices of abortion-seeking women in this small city, yes?
But how do you fix it?
You can have unelected authoritarians issue a rule that all doctors have to perform abortions. That way, since all societies need doctors, as long as you have doctors, you will have abortionists. Even in the smallest city or town. So pregnant women will always have their state-sanctioned choice available to them, even in the smallest city or town.
Unless, of course, massive numbers of doctors quit the practice of medicine in disgust, or otherwise refuse to perform abortions, and you have to punish them. In which case, people might find that not only are they having trouble finding an abortion, they are now having trouble finding ordinary doctor services.
So this liberal quest to "protect choice" by mandating and demanding that ordinary citizens must provide those choices is, of course, anti-choice and not libertarian at all.
The question ("What advice would women give their younger selves?") is a cover story for the narrative, which is that young girls make bad choices, so listen to adult women who know better.
Being someone who is both a redhead who's dealt with skin cancer and a person who has struggled with severe depression (among other things) for most of her life, am only just starting to figure out the risk / reward proportions.
Currently, it's an hour of full body sun, proportioned out - 15 min front, 15 min back, 15 min front, 15 min back, as often as possible during the week.
Hiking or beach-going requires some level of sun protection; I don't go beyond, say, SPF 8, though. I'd had to think that a store would just decline to sell product due to incorrect perceptions of Public Health issues. Then again, CVS took the stance a few years back of no longer selling tobacco products. (Shrug.)
Still on the CVS thing: They're the US point folks for La Roche-Posay products. Are they going to be reducing their line (as well as Vichy, et al?) to fit the new attitude? Going to be interesting to see how the vendors take the new store policies.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा