signalnoise

Despite my better judgment, I've been thinking lately. The worst part, besides the usual cramps and pains of thought, is that I do not like a lot of the conclusions I've coming up with lately. They make me feel *dirty* and even worse *conservative.*

Of course, I have to give you examples to illustrate this ...

1. Reporters. They're all right folks, though it cracks me up when they say they do "analysis" and that really means computing like two averages and comparing them. They seem so proud of themselves, god bless 'em. But, well, I'm not sure that reporters have a constitutional right not to go to prison for refusing to cooperate in an investigation. There is freedom of speech - but that seems to be the right to print what you will, *not* absolving you of responsibility for the information that you obtained or how you obtained it. That doesn't mean people shouldn't print things deemed "illegal" - but I'm not sure that having consequences for information is bad.

Let me try and control this ramble: presumably, protecting a source makes sense to get at information that would not be accessible, and to maintain the good of the republic. I buy that. But, presumably too, some information should *not* be revealed (like say, troop movements). In fact, if someone revealed that (ostensibly, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, so to speak), there should be some repurcussion - for the reporter and the source. I mean, why NOT? Sometimes the information gained will be valuable and important for democracy and freedom. Sure. But how do we make that call? Should reporters have to make a moral choice - is this story for the common good worth prison? Maybe not - but lots of people face that choice in doing what they think is right (or will move more copies of the morning edition).

So, the government cannot stop you from printing it, that's clear. But, if what you say has larger implications - why should the government NOT be able to look into that? Why should there not be consequences?

Some people say that "confidential" sources are like your relationship with your spouse, priest, lawyer or doctor. I have to call bullshit on that one. The latter relationships are clearly "private" actors who you know intimately and always operate in your self-interest. We can *distinctly* parse that from a shadowy interview with a reporter in a parking garage I think. So, I don't buy this line of reasoning.

Basically: what is the good argument that the state should not be able to get this kind of information? Or put you in prison to get it? I'm just having a hard time imagining whta it is, legally?

2. Abortion. More and more, abortion troubles me as an issue on the left. I'm just not sure how OK I am with it anymore - I think it is much more problematic from an ethical/moral stance than the left is wiling to admit. In the end, I'm not sure there is a great argument for saying that abortion is A-OK. Sure, sure it may be private and so on - but pretending that the private sphere is so separate from publc is a cute political fiction.

Don't get me wrong: I'm pro-choice, I don't expect that to change. But it seems like the *moral* dimension of the issue has dropped out for the left. I'm wary of passing judgment on people - but relativism is a weak way to hold up a society at the end of the day. There might be circumstances where abortion is unequivocally OK - mother's health, a couple has children but cannot afford any more and birth control failed, etc. Further, abortion should be maintained, especially so long as there are structural barriers that prevent women earning as much as men, having true equal opportunity, or easy access to full health care/birth control. These structural elements DO change the game.

But, I mean, it seems that the moral aspect of abortion needs to be interrogated more by the left. By not doing so, I feel like the left falls into the saddest, thinnest individualist liberalism (ironic, since abortion is regularly a feminist issue, and there are virulent critiques in some strains of feminism against such atomistic liberal assumptions). I especially hate arguments that "abortion USED to be ok and then doctors took pictures of babies so then people decided it was bad." Such approaches seem to suggest that scientific and philosophical progress are "red herrings" and (stupidly) use tradition to defend a leftist political stance. It's so anti-progress I want to barf.

I know that no one thinks of abortion as a slight issue or blows it off, especially on the individual level. I do not want to suggest that. But I DO think the political rhetoric of the left is really empty on this issue, and this is why Republican/conservative challenges - that have conviction and points not easily dismissed - continue to persist. What is life? When does it start? What kind of a responsibility do we have towards it, as individuals and as a society? More and more, I'm really troubled by these questions and really trite statements that embryos are not "living." I find restrictions on partial birth abortion that limit the practice to only emergencies to save the mother's life, for instance, making perfect sense. Again, given certian structures, I can accept the right to choice - but in a more ideal world of equality, would it still be all right...?

What am I missing? About either debate? Can anyone set me straight again?

I dunno. I'm not necessarily looking for a debate here. I'm not really sure where I finally stand at the end of the day. If pushed by a conservative, I'm sure I'd revert right back to standard lefty positions. But, in my inner thoughts, I find some of these old assumptions giving way...

I dunno. No big deal at the end of the day. Just mental mastrubation.