Thanks Matt, good piece. I love the ask Matt ones a lot.
I agree on McCartney, someone recently showed me a video he made I wasn't aware of, where he plays all the parts ( but two by Linda) and plays all the instruments
Plus, Lennon was pretty odd even for me, and seemed to have no sense of humor
I did get to see Paul in concert at Cleveland Stadium in 1991. It was awesome.
Though this may lose me some respect...but, I have also always liked Ringo because he was the whimsical, fun one with the songs he sang and or/wrote...
Hey Angie, read Rob Sheffield's excellent "Dreaming The Beatles" if you haven't. It on Audible if you don't want to do it the hard way. He has a great chapter on Ringo, as I recall.
Not posting anything smart and witty here. Just want to say that people who are upset about the Dobbs decision, and Justice Thomas's concurrence, might want to make a bit of an effort to understand the concept of substantive due process, and how we got to this point. In short, the legal problem with the "right" to abortion stems from its origination. Essentially, it was a judicial creation from the start. And under our system, judges don't make laws (or, more accurately, aren't supposed to) and that's exactly what happened in Roe, its progeny, and all the other cases built on the judicial fallacy that is substantive due process.
AMEN. I called BS on it when I learned about it in law school. My eyes were really opened when Justice Scalia came to give a talk. I consider myself privileged to have been in his presence.
I've got no particular passion on the abortion issue, but I've long been persuaded by those who've argued that Roe was abysmal jurisprudence. The idea that the Constitution emanates some right to privacy, hence, via the Presto-Chang-O clause, carry the penumbra, ergo, abortion is legal...well, it's a bit of a stretch.
I mean, when the people in power one day decide they can take their jobs of reading the laws to mean reading the laws in ways they had no indication of intending, just in order to get the very outcome those powerful people wanted to obtain, well, at some point we'll wind up in a country where, say, one person says he won an election even though the raw numbers indicate the complete opposite, and, uh, where was I?
"when the people in power one day decide they can take their jobs of reading the laws to mean reading the laws in ways they had no indication of intending, just in order to get the very outcome those powerful people wanted to obtain, … "
What makes you think that's not what the Originalists do?
Fly fishing is to regular fishing like bow hunting is to regular rifle/shotgun hunting: more complex and demanding, and requiring more precision. It’s tougher, but once you do it, you won’t go back (even if you use a spin caster or a rifle here and there). You really have to earn your quarry.
Plus, you get to buy a ton of new gear too. Who wouldn’t like that?
Why not stalk them with a knife or a spear if you really want a challenge? Modern compound bows give a bow hunter a pretty serious edge. I have never understood fly fishermen, other than as elitist snobs that look down on us Neanderthal spin casters. Good day to you sir.
Ha! I hear ya man. (By the way, while I love fly fishing, I really suck at it. My first trout of the year was yesterday. Waaaay behind.) Compound bows give an edge…over recurves. They’re around 350 fps, compared to, say, the 2,000+ fps of a rifle, and our shots have to be less than 40 yards.
Honestly, I’ve considered trying recurve hunting though. Now that’s tough.
I wish abortion had been left as a topic we could choose to discuss or ignore; that the right had focused on persuading hearts and minds instead of insisting on gaining the force of law. But they didn’t. Well, they wanted this victory. Now we will see what fruits that victory will produce.
For me, this week of abortion and guns has only served to radicalize my already existing antipathy for what the GOP has become. I was once a Republican. I voted for Reagan. I stopped identifying as one some years ago but I would split my votes, read Republican op eds, and enjoyed debates with Republican friends and family members.
That frame of mind has been shrinking during the Trump years and by now it’s gone. I now consider the GOP anathema. Republicans are still my neighbors. But the political debates are all dead and gone. I now have absolutely no interest in anything political any Republican has to say. I’m not interested in reading platitudes from the “nice” Republicans who are calling for more social services NOW that Roe has been overturned. I have only contempt for the bad faith pablum about how now citizens get to decide the abortion issue, while Republicans simultaneously go all out to try and game the system in order to maintain perpetual minority rule. I don’t see them as partners in our democracy anymore. I only want to see them lose.
And then there is the SCOTUS and what it’s become. I’m also a lawyer. Been one a long time. I previously disagreed often with decisions from the SCOTUS, but held the institution itself as almost holy, a secular Vatican. But I’ve been radicalized in that area as well. I consider the court to be wholly illegitimate, an institution of pure political partisanship dominated by right wing extremists whose only source of authority are the guns and jails of the Executive Branch. The opinions of this court will only matter as long as enough votes exist to sustain them.
Republicans have their victory. But they won it through gamesmanship and raw political power. They haven’t won over hearts and minds. And they’ve radicalized even more of their opposition. Including me.
Lots of folks will disagree with my point of view and dismiss it as sour grapes or simply not care. And that’s fine. I’m just one nonviolent person with one vote whose only power lies in divesting a few unnoticed dollars from a few companies who support those people I find repugnant. But consider this:
If I - a late middle-aged white male politically independent and moderate lawyer and one time Republican from a small Texas town - have become, in my own way, radicalized — what might that say about the future their victory will have wrought?
When did you lose your faith in SCOTUS? I became a skeptic in law school while learning about Constitutional law, thinking to myself, "they're just pulling $hit outta the air." It is what it is. Not sure there's any better form of government out there.
You claim to be a moderate, but your outrageous comment seems to suggest that in reality you're a highly partisan liberal. You may disagree with the result in Dobbs, but to say the "institution is pure political partisanship" and "wholly illegitimate" is pretty shocking. Apparently, you were fine when activist Justices on the Court dreamt up the abortion "right" on the basis of emanating prenumbras only they could see. Instead of addressing the substance of the decision (feel free to take a crack at it if you want), you offer nothing more than an emotional outburst in an attempt to bolster your own personal opinion on the matter.
OP claims to be a moderate, but the comment clearly suggests otherwise. Not sure how pointing that out amounts to a personal attack. Also, coming from a lawyer, you'd expect a reasoned legal basis for that opinion. Instead, there was nothing of the sort. Again, not sure how pointing that out is a personal attack. I'm happy to debate the facts if OP would like to do that. But, I don't see anything fact-based in the original comment. Just over the top liberal talking points. And two final points: first, for a lawyer, whether OP, or our esteemed Attorney General, to question the legitimacy of the Court simply because they disagree with an outcome/opinion is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable, and second, if my comments are indeed inappropriate for this forum, I'm fine with the moderator removing them.
Some examples of attacking the poster instead of the ideas:
"highly partisan liberal."
"Apparently, you were fine when activist Justices on the Court dreamt up the abortion "right" on the basis of emanating prenumbras only they could see."
These are not only speculative, they are insulting
They are addressing the poster, not the opinion/issue itself
Which we frown on here...
This contributes to the divide and sometimes hate between the sides, and I just tend to point it out when I see it, because I think it is the real problem that will destroy us...you dislike isn't of what he thinks, but who he is...
And actually, having an opinion you don't agree with is not wrong or outrageous etc, it is just different than yours...that is also part of the problem IMO...
I think only Matt moderates and unless he sees it randomly, or someone reports it, nothing would happen, and I am not going to, just pointing out we try to not do this , nor make partisan insults as part of their posting
oh, also saying he isn't a moderate, which is kind calling him a liar...
Well I was only about 7 years old when Roe came down so I didn’t have much of an opinion on it when it came out.
But more seriously, yes my comment may be outrageous. That was my point. I’ve been radicalized. I’m not trying to persuade you of my position. I’m making the point that if I’ve been radicalized, that may say something about where things are headed.
You can disbelieve me when I say I was a moderate if you want. Makes no difference to me.
MS- I’m asking in a sincere, friendly tone; Why would the Dobbs decision render SCOTUS radicalized, partisan, controlled by extremists, and therefore illegitimate, but none of this would apply when Roe v Wade was handed down?
Whatever the merits and flaws of Roe, it was a 7-2 case, was affirmed by Casey, and has been relied on by women in making personal health decisions for over 50 years.
What has changed since then other than a combination of luck and gamesmanship that put a new extreme right majority on the Court?
I quite understand your position. I am a 66 year old life long former Republican. I did door to door work for local candidates. I left the party shortly after Trump was elected. I now find I have problems conversing with some long time friends that still think the country would be better off with Trump in office. I did not agree with McConnell gaming the system to avoid giving Garland a chance to be voted onto the court. I think Robert's position on Dobbs was correct.
Apparently you thought the Warren court was just Jim Dandy? Conservatives had those decisions shoved up their ass for decades without rioting or trying to pack the court, it’s your turn to put up with rulings you don’t like. “Radicalize” away my friend, the worm has turned.
Then surely as a lawyer you must have studied the decisions made during Warren’s tenure, and yet you’re incensed with the ideological bent of this Court? If you think ideology has been absent up to now you’re either ignorant of history or deluded. I’m just making this point, I do not mean to insult you personally, I’m sure you’re a fine gentleman ( in keeping with Matt’s wishes).
Ideology has never been absent from the Court. But let’s not be trite. I remember a story, which may be apocryphal, in which Scalia said about of C Thomas “I’m conservative but I’m not crazy.”
SCOTUS has been a conservative court for decades. But that hasn’t been good enough. Now it’s not just conservative, it’s extremist. It’s a C Thomas Crazy Court. Disagree if you want. That’s my take.
Like the village in Vietnam, with regard to the Court, conservatives have effectively “destroyed it in order to save it.”
We will indeed. My point still stands, Justice Thomas notwithstanding. Fortunately he is one vote and I doubt his ability to persuade his colleagues to follow him.
Can’t say I’ve shadowed your sojourn, because I’ve counted myself a conservative for a long time now. That is, I believe government is too big, too big for its britches, and too expensive in everything it does, much of which it shouldn’t be dong anyway.
Needless to say, I’ve never had any use for Trump, even if he or his appointees have stumbled onto policies I might agree with while DJT was otherwise preoccupied.
At any rate, I find Trump nauseating, his fans as tiresome and trying as the members of any other cult, and yet I find no acceptable options in the other oligopolistic party.
And I don’t feel like I’ve got a lesson to teach anyone by any of my political actions, especially seeing that the would-be pupils don’t seem to be seated at their desks with bright eyes and sharpened pencils, ready and eager to learn.
I'm not capable of arguing Roe on legal merits. What I feel instead is profound sadness for the many women who will lose *ready* access to the choice I had as a young woman.
I'm very grateful that when I needed that help, it was available to me so I could wait to be ready for the wonderful child I bore and raised to adulthood at a time when I was fully capable of being a parent.
I respect others' viewpoints and don't seek to change them to my own. I will, though, do all I can to help those who feel stranded by this decision, especially in my own state, which is likely to make most abortions illegal.
Thanks for including the picture. Was that from the last Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, a snippet from CPAC, a typical Tea Party caucus, or was it one of the latest releases from the January 6th Committee? They're all so much alike that it's hard to keep them straight!
As to fishing tools. I began with a humble Zebco spin cast rig and caught my biggest largemouth ever (20" and full of eggs) in my first spring. Since then I have played with fly rods, true spinning rigs, and my son recently got me into baitcasting. To this I say, "All of the above!" And the same goes for bass or trout. I am totally for equal opportunity!
About this comment: “So here’s hoping they remember that being pro-life shouldn’t stop when the baby makes it to the other side of the birth canal.” The problem with that is it has never happened and never will. “Pro-Life” people care fundamentally about imposing their personal values on people they will never know. Most of them care little about unwanted children. If they cared, they would adopt some of those kids. Do you know of anyone who has? I’m still looking for someone who has, but I haven’t found them yet. When is the last time some group won a huge SC decision and the result was zero material benefit to the winners?
I know lots of pro-life people who've adopted unwanted children. (Do you think only pro-choice people do?) Randall was indeed an exceptional case - in that he was protesting in front of a clinic, and ended up adopting the children of a woman he talked out of an abortion. Don't know many of those. But I suspect if you'd survey adoption agencies, you'd find hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers who have adopted unwanted children.
I’ve asked at least a dozen right wing people my question and every one of them has folded. So, perhaps I’ve had bad luck, or perhaps you’ve had good luck. I would be interested in your take on my assertion that we are looking at a situation that benefits no one materially. (Spirituality doesn’t count, because I’m as spiritual as anyone.). Heck, I have literally held trees and tried to communicate with them. A friend of mine told me a while back: hey man, are you a Druid? To which I said, I’ll take that lane, I love God’s work. So bottom line here is as you’ve said, we can air our differences while still respecting each other.
Many of us donate to causes to help with child poverty. I am also a Big Sister and have been in that role for 9 years. My husband and I also are funding her college education. Don't paint with such a broad brush.
Jay didn’t “bully” anyone. Tweedy tried to bone his girlfriend (now wife.)
Jay’s pretty insufferable these days (see Isbell, J., Truckers, Drive-By,) but “Trace” is an all-timer. “Honkey Tonk” (2013) is excellent; Bakersfield country. Check it out if you haven’t.
If you have a good conscience and feel that parents of unwanted children need some help, please read this. You have to be a subscriber to The Atlantic to read it:
Well, honey, bless your heart! You wriggled out of the RoeWade stickiness as slickly as those old time, yet current, Evangelical Southern Baptist Preachers do when discovered in an…ahem..awkward position. I still subscribe but haven’t had time to read your columns in a while. I just found myself so satisfied after reading Heather Cox Richardson’s excellent (and near daily) postings, I would happily move on to my research of the day.
I do think of you and, occasionally, respond in my mind but never quite make it.
I have known you forever. I understand you are a part of the tide that carried to SBC away from its basic tenets and into a New way of being. It’s ok. I still love you as a fellow human and the trials I survived were not directly at your hand.
Only you could write what you did, how you did, and make your point without offending any sensible human on either side. (Love that you refer to your children as "cost-centers.") As an infant I was given up for adoption—according to what I was told as a child—by my Catholic DNA-mother because she wouldn't get an abortion. This should make me a walking testament to why abortion is never the answer. Yet I choose to avoid the topic. Doing so helps me focus on the really good stuff, like this: "As for the disturbing news that Clarence Thomas next wishes to come for contraception, I can only say that he should quit while he’s ahead, he should tend to more important matters like buying his crazy-ass wife a straitjacket, and if he intends to take my love glove, he’ll have to pry it from my warm, moist hand." That kind of writing can't be taught. Thankfully, a very few like yourself have developed it on their own, by focussing on doing at least one goddamn thing better than anyone else.
Very kind, Tom. For those of you who don't know, Tom Bie is the editor of The Drake magazine, the best print fly fishing magazine in America. (Yes, there are still a few print magazines left.) Subscribe now:
I agree that minds will never be changed on the abortion issue, at least very few will. My beef is, was, will always be, how does a life being brought into the world by someone other than me, become my choice to make.
Fly fishing over spin……no question.
Wilco over Sun Volt……again, no question.
Pie over Cake (I realize wasn’t in the matrix today, just added……cause)
Now the hard one.
For 50 years or so, we as a nation (and particularly Abortion Inc.) have failed miserably to focus on the care of the children born in unwanted circumstance post arrival. Every life might be precious in the abstract, but in the real world a whole bunch of “ lives” are unwanted, get abused, are neglected, are horrifically medically compromised, and otherwise abandoned. If Abortion Inc. did the bare minimum in giving a rat’s ass about actually “caring” I might be willing to engage their argument, but they don’t so I won’t.
And lastly, can we at least try to hold men accountable for their often reckless, criminal, and violent behavior that leads to many of the unwanted pregnancies?
Thanks Matt, good piece. I love the ask Matt ones a lot.
I agree on McCartney, someone recently showed me a video he made I wasn't aware of, where he plays all the parts ( but two by Linda) and plays all the instruments
Plus, Lennon was pretty odd even for me, and seemed to have no sense of humor
I did get to see Paul in concert at Cleveland Stadium in 1991. It was awesome.
Though this may lose me some respect...but, I have also always liked Ringo because he was the whimsical, fun one with the songs he sang and or/wrote...
A shocking number of top-tier drummers consider him an all-time great, too.
I have read that too, I was surprised they thought so, I am not musically nformed enough to rate any pro musicians though
I don’t hear it myself, though it mostly from not listening to the Beatles much.
Bonham, Ginger Baker, Keith Moon & Neil Peart are my Rushmore drummers, but tons of dudes who play for a living worship Ringo.
Hey Angie, read Rob Sheffield's excellent "Dreaming The Beatles" if you haven't. It on Audible if you don't want to do it the hard way. He has a great chapter on Ringo, as I recall.
Thanks I prefer the real thing ...lol
I am right now tackling David Eagleman's: LIVEWIRED: The Inside story of the ever-chaning brain
Very interesting/fascinating, written to lay people and an easy read..not very long either ( though he has 20 pages of footnotes...lol..
I will look up your recommendation now, thanks
Not posting anything smart and witty here. Just want to say that people who are upset about the Dobbs decision, and Justice Thomas's concurrence, might want to make a bit of an effort to understand the concept of substantive due process, and how we got to this point. In short, the legal problem with the "right" to abortion stems from its origination. Essentially, it was a judicial creation from the start. And under our system, judges don't make laws (or, more accurately, aren't supposed to) and that's exactly what happened in Roe, its progeny, and all the other cases built on the judicial fallacy that is substantive due process.
AMEN. I called BS on it when I learned about it in law school. My eyes were really opened when Justice Scalia came to give a talk. I consider myself privileged to have been in his presence.
Plus one. Former/recovering lawyer here. Emenations and penumbras my foot.
It also appears that it will be some more time until the "news" returns to any pretense of neutrality, let alone the reality.
I've got no particular passion on the abortion issue, but I've long been persuaded by those who've argued that Roe was abysmal jurisprudence. The idea that the Constitution emanates some right to privacy, hence, via the Presto-Chang-O clause, carry the penumbra, ergo, abortion is legal...well, it's a bit of a stretch.
I mean, when the people in power one day decide they can take their jobs of reading the laws to mean reading the laws in ways they had no indication of intending, just in order to get the very outcome those powerful people wanted to obtain, well, at some point we'll wind up in a country where, say, one person says he won an election even though the raw numbers indicate the complete opposite, and, uh, where was I?
"when the people in power one day decide they can take their jobs of reading the laws to mean reading the laws in ways they had no indication of intending, just in order to get the very outcome those powerful people wanted to obtain, … "
What makes you think that's not what the Originalists do?
They may—but at least they show their work for the sake of debate. That’s better fir my tastes than: “The law says X, because we said so, nyah-nyah!”
Fly fishing is to regular fishing like bow hunting is to regular rifle/shotgun hunting: more complex and demanding, and requiring more precision. It’s tougher, but once you do it, you won’t go back (even if you use a spin caster or a rifle here and there). You really have to earn your quarry.
Plus, you get to buy a ton of new gear too. Who wouldn’t like that?
Why not stalk them with a knife or a spear if you really want a challenge? Modern compound bows give a bow hunter a pretty serious edge. I have never understood fly fishermen, other than as elitist snobs that look down on us Neanderthal spin casters. Good day to you sir.
Ha! I hear ya man. (By the way, while I love fly fishing, I really suck at it. My first trout of the year was yesterday. Waaaay behind.) Compound bows give an edge…over recurves. They’re around 350 fps, compared to, say, the 2,000+ fps of a rifle, and our shots have to be less than 40 yards.
Honestly, I’ve considered trying recurve hunting though. Now that’s tough.
You make a persuasive case, in my mind, for bringing back dynamite fishing.
I wish abortion had been left as a topic we could choose to discuss or ignore; that the right had focused on persuading hearts and minds instead of insisting on gaining the force of law. But they didn’t. Well, they wanted this victory. Now we will see what fruits that victory will produce.
For me, this week of abortion and guns has only served to radicalize my already existing antipathy for what the GOP has become. I was once a Republican. I voted for Reagan. I stopped identifying as one some years ago but I would split my votes, read Republican op eds, and enjoyed debates with Republican friends and family members.
That frame of mind has been shrinking during the Trump years and by now it’s gone. I now consider the GOP anathema. Republicans are still my neighbors. But the political debates are all dead and gone. I now have absolutely no interest in anything political any Republican has to say. I’m not interested in reading platitudes from the “nice” Republicans who are calling for more social services NOW that Roe has been overturned. I have only contempt for the bad faith pablum about how now citizens get to decide the abortion issue, while Republicans simultaneously go all out to try and game the system in order to maintain perpetual minority rule. I don’t see them as partners in our democracy anymore. I only want to see them lose.
And then there is the SCOTUS and what it’s become. I’m also a lawyer. Been one a long time. I previously disagreed often with decisions from the SCOTUS, but held the institution itself as almost holy, a secular Vatican. But I’ve been radicalized in that area as well. I consider the court to be wholly illegitimate, an institution of pure political partisanship dominated by right wing extremists whose only source of authority are the guns and jails of the Executive Branch. The opinions of this court will only matter as long as enough votes exist to sustain them.
Republicans have their victory. But they won it through gamesmanship and raw political power. They haven’t won over hearts and minds. And they’ve radicalized even more of their opposition. Including me.
Lots of folks will disagree with my point of view and dismiss it as sour grapes or simply not care. And that’s fine. I’m just one nonviolent person with one vote whose only power lies in divesting a few unnoticed dollars from a few companies who support those people I find repugnant. But consider this:
If I - a late middle-aged white male politically independent and moderate lawyer and one time Republican from a small Texas town - have become, in my own way, radicalized — what might that say about the future their victory will have wrought?
When did you lose your faith in SCOTUS? I became a skeptic in law school while learning about Constitutional law, thinking to myself, "they're just pulling $hit outta the air." It is what it is. Not sure there's any better form of government out there.
You claim to be a moderate, but your outrageous comment seems to suggest that in reality you're a highly partisan liberal. You may disagree with the result in Dobbs, but to say the "institution is pure political partisanship" and "wholly illegitimate" is pretty shocking. Apparently, you were fine when activist Justices on the Court dreamt up the abortion "right" on the basis of emanating prenumbras only they could see. Instead of addressing the substance of the decision (feel free to take a crack at it if you want), you offer nothing more than an emotional outburst in an attempt to bolster your own personal opinion on the matter.
Sheesh, I don't think insulting other posters personally is commiserate with being "civil" as Matt prefers we all be?
Youc an debate the opinions/ideas, but attacking someone personally is pretty ver boten here
OP claims to be a moderate, but the comment clearly suggests otherwise. Not sure how pointing that out amounts to a personal attack. Also, coming from a lawyer, you'd expect a reasoned legal basis for that opinion. Instead, there was nothing of the sort. Again, not sure how pointing that out is a personal attack. I'm happy to debate the facts if OP would like to do that. But, I don't see anything fact-based in the original comment. Just over the top liberal talking points. And two final points: first, for a lawyer, whether OP, or our esteemed Attorney General, to question the legitimacy of the Court simply because they disagree with an outcome/opinion is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable, and second, if my comments are indeed inappropriate for this forum, I'm fine with the moderator removing them.
Some examples of attacking the poster instead of the ideas:
"highly partisan liberal."
"Apparently, you were fine when activist Justices on the Court dreamt up the abortion "right" on the basis of emanating prenumbras only they could see."
These are not only speculative, they are insulting
They are addressing the poster, not the opinion/issue itself
Which we frown on here...
This contributes to the divide and sometimes hate between the sides, and I just tend to point it out when I see it, because I think it is the real problem that will destroy us...you dislike isn't of what he thinks, but who he is...
And actually, having an opinion you don't agree with is not wrong or outrageous etc, it is just different than yours...that is also part of the problem IMO...
I think only Matt moderates and unless he sees it randomly, or someone reports it, nothing would happen, and I am not going to, just pointing out we try to not do this , nor make partisan insults as part of their posting
oh, also saying he isn't a moderate, which is kind calling him a liar...
Thanks Angie. Was at an engagement party, and meant to police closer. But next time, I'll just put you in charge while I'm away.
You are welcome, hope I didn't overstep
Well I was only about 7 years old when Roe came down so I didn’t have much of an opinion on it when it came out.
But more seriously, yes my comment may be outrageous. That was my point. I’ve been radicalized. I’m not trying to persuade you of my position. I’m making the point that if I’ve been radicalized, that may say something about where things are headed.
You can disbelieve me when I say I was a moderate if you want. Makes no difference to me.
MS- I’m asking in a sincere, friendly tone; Why would the Dobbs decision render SCOTUS radicalized, partisan, controlled by extremists, and therefore illegitimate, but none of this would apply when Roe v Wade was handed down?
Whatever the merits and flaws of Roe, it was a 7-2 case, was affirmed by Casey, and has been relied on by women in making personal health decisions for over 50 years.
What has changed since then other than a combination of luck and gamesmanship that put a new extreme right majority on the Court?
I quite understand your position. I am a 66 year old life long former Republican. I did door to door work for local candidates. I left the party shortly after Trump was elected. I now find I have problems conversing with some long time friends that still think the country would be better off with Trump in office. I did not agree with McConnell gaming the system to avoid giving Garland a chance to be voted onto the court. I think Robert's position on Dobbs was correct.
Apparently you thought the Warren court was just Jim Dandy? Conservatives had those decisions shoved up their ass for decades without rioting or trying to pack the court, it’s your turn to put up with rulings you don’t like. “Radicalize” away my friend, the worm has turned.
I said I was “late middle aged.” I was a reasonably intelligent kid but I had no opinions on any Warren Court opinions when they came out.
Then surely as a lawyer you must have studied the decisions made during Warren’s tenure, and yet you’re incensed with the ideological bent of this Court? If you think ideology has been absent up to now you’re either ignorant of history or deluded. I’m just making this point, I do not mean to insult you personally, I’m sure you’re a fine gentleman ( in keeping with Matt’s wishes).
Ideology has never been absent from the Court. But let’s not be trite. I remember a story, which may be apocryphal, in which Scalia said about of C Thomas “I’m conservative but I’m not crazy.”
SCOTUS has been a conservative court for decades. But that hasn’t been good enough. Now it’s not just conservative, it’s extremist. It’s a C Thomas Crazy Court. Disagree if you want. That’s my take.
Like the village in Vietnam, with regard to the Court, conservatives have effectively “destroyed it in order to save it.”
We will see what the consequences will be.
We will indeed. My point still stands, Justice Thomas notwithstanding. Fortunately he is one vote and I doubt his ability to persuade his colleagues to follow him.
Wow! You’re really fed up.
Can’t say I’ve shadowed your sojourn, because I’ve counted myself a conservative for a long time now. That is, I believe government is too big, too big for its britches, and too expensive in everything it does, much of which it shouldn’t be dong anyway.
Needless to say, I’ve never had any use for Trump, even if he or his appointees have stumbled onto policies I might agree with while DJT was otherwise preoccupied.
At any rate, I find Trump nauseating, his fans as tiresome and trying as the members of any other cult, and yet I find no acceptable options in the other oligopolistic party.
And I don’t feel like I’ve got a lesson to teach anyone by any of my political actions, especially seeing that the would-be pupils don’t seem to be seated at their desks with bright eyes and sharpened pencils, ready and eager to learn.
I'm not capable of arguing Roe on legal merits. What I feel instead is profound sadness for the many women who will lose *ready* access to the choice I had as a young woman.
I'm very grateful that when I needed that help, it was available to me so I could wait to be ready for the wonderful child I bore and raised to adulthood at a time when I was fully capable of being a parent.
I respect others' viewpoints and don't seek to change them to my own. I will, though, do all I can to help those who feel stranded by this decision, especially in my own state, which is likely to make most abortions illegal.
Matt:
Thanks for including the picture. Was that from the last Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, a snippet from CPAC, a typical Tea Party caucus, or was it one of the latest releases from the January 6th Committee? They're all so much alike that it's hard to keep them straight!
As to fishing tools. I began with a humble Zebco spin cast rig and caught my biggest largemouth ever (20" and full of eggs) in my first spring. Since then I have played with fly rods, true spinning rigs, and my son recently got me into baitcasting. To this I say, "All of the above!" And the same goes for bass or trout. I am totally for equal opportunity!
Bass also taste a lot better. (Cue Matt's tut-tutting of the Philistines.)
About this comment: “So here’s hoping they remember that being pro-life shouldn’t stop when the baby makes it to the other side of the birth canal.” The problem with that is it has never happened and never will. “Pro-Life” people care fundamentally about imposing their personal values on people they will never know. Most of them care little about unwanted children. If they cared, they would adopt some of those kids. Do you know of anyone who has? I’m still looking for someone who has, but I haven’t found them yet. When is the last time some group won a huge SC decision and the result was zero material benefit to the winners?
Yeah, I do. Randall Terry adopted two of them. (See the column from May that I hyperlinked in this piece.)
A major exception in my experience. Can you name five more?
I know lots of pro-life people who've adopted unwanted children. (Do you think only pro-choice people do?) Randall was indeed an exceptional case - in that he was protesting in front of a clinic, and ended up adopting the children of a woman he talked out of an abortion. Don't know many of those. But I suspect if you'd survey adoption agencies, you'd find hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers who have adopted unwanted children.
I’ve asked at least a dozen right wing people my question and every one of them has folded. So, perhaps I’ve had bad luck, or perhaps you’ve had good luck. I would be interested in your take on my assertion that we are looking at a situation that benefits no one materially. (Spirituality doesn’t count, because I’m as spiritual as anyone.). Heck, I have literally held trees and tried to communicate with them. A friend of mine told me a while back: hey man, are you a Druid? To which I said, I’ll take that lane, I love God’s work. So bottom line here is as you’ve said, we can air our differences while still respecting each other.
That's not a bad place to start. (Or end.) And I kind of like your Druid spirit. But what do you mean that nobody benefits materially?
Many of us donate to causes to help with child poverty. I am also a Big Sister and have been in that role for 9 years. My husband and I also are funding her college education. Don't paint with such a broad brush.
I applaud your efforts. However my litmus test is, if you want unwanted children to be born into this world you should take them under your roof.
You do realize thousands of couples are waiting to adopt infants, right?
"Bass are perfect fly rod quarry. They’re aggressive, they like to hit on topwater, they’re not as fussy as trout, and they make a lot more of them."
"Heya topwater, I'm learning 'bout important dates in history. Wanna be one of them? I'm not as fussy as trout ifyaknowwhatI'msayin'..."
Man. You got it almost exactly right!
And concur on that duet with Kelly. She’s a dream boat.
And not that I fish in that stream, but George Harrison is criminally underrated.
Was that question yours Kev? I'm flattered. Though also grievously offended by your "almost."
Jay didn’t “bully” anyone. Tweedy tried to bone his girlfriend (now wife.)
Jay’s pretty insufferable these days (see Isbell, J., Truckers, Drive-By,) but “Trace” is an all-timer. “Honkey Tonk” (2013) is excellent; Bakersfield country. Check it out if you haven’t.
Well, that's a pretty good reason to break up a band. (Even if Tweedy tells it somewhat differently.) Will check it out, thanks.
Also: I *knew* you were a Stones guy. Just knew it.
And Whiskeytown…damn, dude. Faithless Street & Strangers Almanac…why can’t it be 1994-97 again, Matt?
WHY?
Edit:
Hearts & Minds:
https://youtu.be/VCNT4vg7T6Q
Hey Kev- I’m on to you with the Finebaum reference.
Didn’t realize I made one?
I don’t listen to or watch PAAAAAAAWWWWWL. Makes your brain smaller.
I don't know, man. If you can invent a musical time machine, I'll take that ride.
To Austin City Limits, where I found so many great acts:
https://youtu.be/nqFlohn8yqY
Rubio advanced the Providing for Life Act. It's a start.
If you have a good conscience and feel that parents of unwanted children need some help, please read this. You have to be a subscriber to The Atlantic to read it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/pro-life-dobbs-roe-culture-of-life/661394/
Great article, thanks for posting
Sun Volt fan here, but enjoy Wilco too. Great commentary.
We’re like the Menshiveks: a proud, determined minority.
(Leave all Trotsky comments at the door, even though they may apply.)
Matt!
Well, honey, bless your heart! You wriggled out of the RoeWade stickiness as slickly as those old time, yet current, Evangelical Southern Baptist Preachers do when discovered in an…ahem..awkward position. I still subscribe but haven’t had time to read your columns in a while. I just found myself so satisfied after reading Heather Cox Richardson’s excellent (and near daily) postings, I would happily move on to my research of the day.
I do think of you and, occasionally, respond in my mind but never quite make it.
I have known you forever. I understand you are a part of the tide that carried to SBC away from its basic tenets and into a New way of being. It’s ok. I still love you as a fellow human and the trials I survived were not directly at your hand.
Happy writing!
Only you could write what you did, how you did, and make your point without offending any sensible human on either side. (Love that you refer to your children as "cost-centers.") As an infant I was given up for adoption—according to what I was told as a child—by my Catholic DNA-mother because she wouldn't get an abortion. This should make me a walking testament to why abortion is never the answer. Yet I choose to avoid the topic. Doing so helps me focus on the really good stuff, like this: "As for the disturbing news that Clarence Thomas next wishes to come for contraception, I can only say that he should quit while he’s ahead, he should tend to more important matters like buying his crazy-ass wife a straitjacket, and if he intends to take my love glove, he’ll have to pry it from my warm, moist hand." That kind of writing can't be taught. Thankfully, a very few like yourself have developed it on their own, by focussing on doing at least one goddamn thing better than anyone else.
Very kind, Tom. For those of you who don't know, Tom Bie is the editor of The Drake magazine, the best print fly fishing magazine in America. (Yes, there are still a few print magazines left.) Subscribe now:
https://drakemag.com/subscribe-to-the-drake-magazine/
I agree that minds will never be changed on the abortion issue, at least very few will. My beef is, was, will always be, how does a life being brought into the world by someone other than me, become my choice to make.
Fly fishing over spin……no question.
Wilco over Sun Volt……again, no question.
Pie over Cake (I realize wasn’t in the matrix today, just added……cause)
Now the hard one.
For 50 years or so, we as a nation (and particularly Abortion Inc.) have failed miserably to focus on the care of the children born in unwanted circumstance post arrival. Every life might be precious in the abstract, but in the real world a whole bunch of “ lives” are unwanted, get abused, are neglected, are horrifically medically compromised, and otherwise abandoned. If Abortion Inc. did the bare minimum in giving a rat’s ass about actually “caring” I might be willing to engage their argument, but they don’t so I won’t.
And lastly, can we at least try to hold men accountable for their often reckless, criminal, and violent behavior that leads to many of the unwanted pregnancies?
Well said, Mary. Thank you.
The correct answer, Mary, is pie, of course.