Friday, December 12, 2008

Biological and Baby Mama Bashed

WSJ's resident leftist, Thomas "What's the Matter With Kansas" Frank, goes ape over the surrogate motherhood of one Alex Kuscynski.

Frank writes:

At long last, our national love affair with the rich is coming to a close. The moguls whose exploits we used to follow with such fascination, it now seems, plowed the country into the ground precisely because of the fabulous rewards that were showered on them.

Massive inequality, we have learned, isn't the best way to run an economy after all. And when you think about it, it's also profoundly ugly.

Some people haven't received the memo, though. Take Alex Kuczynski, author of the New York Times Magazine cover story for Nov. 30, which tells how she went about hiring another woman to bear her child.

Read it all here.

What is quite obvious is that Frank was far too sensible and clever to have ever been a part of this supposed love affair with the rich. He favors politcal policies that, if nothing else would bring the sort of beautiful massive equality found in the pre-crack-up Soviet Union.

But it's the bashing and trashing of Kuczynski that gets ugly here.

Frank's characterization of her piece is rife through with class jealously and undisguised hatred.

Yes, there are moral implications to surrogate motherhood. It might have been interesting if Frank had deigned to explore them. Instead he indicts the practice as an example of the free-market gone wild.

But it seems Frank only real objection to surrogacy is that rich women like Kucyznski can take advantage of it.

Spencerblog checked out Kucyznski's piece online. One of Frank's nastiest criticisms of the story is that it dehumanizes surrogate baby mama Cathy Hilling, who happens to be from Harleysville.

But, it is, Frank who dehumanizes Hilling, treating her as nothing more than a benighted tool with which to crack Kucyznski over the head.

More from Frank:

"Then there are the photographs, already infamous: Ms. Kuczynski in a black sleeveless sheath and stiletto-heel pumps, posing next to the pregnant surrogate in khakis and a tousled pink flannel shirt. Ms. Kuczynski holding the baby on the lawn of her Southampton estate, with columns, topiary and servant. The surrogate sitting, barefoot and alone, on a beat-up porch of her house in Pennsylvania."

Frank doesn't bother to name her. But he leaves the impression she is destitute and alone when, according to the story, she is happily married to a William and Mary graduate with whom she has three children.

As for Kuczynski, it seems to me her piece gives Cathy all due respect and affection.

There is one notable passage...

"I wish I could say that everyone’s reaction to Max’s birth was as generous. Most people were overjoyed for us. But extraordinary circumstances, I discovered, bring out extraordinary reactions in some people. I least expected jealousy. This from women who looked at me with tight smiles and said, “Well, thank God you didn’t have to give birth to that huge child!” Or, glumly: “You’re so lucky. Pregnancy is overrated.” One announced to a table of people at a dinner party: “My God, Alex. You’ve really gotten away with some stuff in your life. But this takes the cake!” It was as if I had performed some slimy trick and was still able to have my ticket stamped “Mother.”

Kucyznski's surprise at people's jealously is naive in the extreme but it speaks well of her.

Frank's bit of slimy nastiness does less for him.


Anonymous r said...

Frank's characterization of her piece is rife through with class jealously and undisguised hatred.

Liberals are the most hate-filled, insensitive and intolerant bigots on the planet.

December 12, 2008 at 11:21 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spencer, did you see the movie: The Handmaiden's Tale?

Sounds like you'd be on the side of Robert Duvall and Faye Dunaway and their vision of society.

December 12, 2008 at 11:29 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Actually, we did see that film. It was based on Margaret Atwood's book and if Anon-iano had bothered to read Kuczynski's piece he'd have seen she referenced it too.

Atwood's distopian fable of women being involuntarily used as breeders has hardly become a reality.

There are thousands of women who have voluntarily served as surrogate baby carriers for women unable to carry a pregnancy to term themselves.

Sounds like Franks and Anon-iano believe such women - the surrogates and rich women who hire them - should be revealed to be the money-grubbing and ugly women they believe them to be.

The least Anon-iano should do is read Kuczynski's piece before likening her to a rather unattractive and morally obtuse fictional character.

December 12, 2008 at 1:17 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Yeah, funny how Libs like DDD always hate just exactly the wrong people while sympathizing with and defending the true scum.
But then no one ever said that Libism isn't backwards like that.

December 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM 
Anonymous Aaron Proctor said...

"Liberals are the most hate-filled, insensitive and intolerant bigots on the planet."

It's amazing. The group of people (Liberals) who say they're the most open-minded, sensitive, tolerant people on the planet are quite the opposite.

If they spent all the time they take to cover all of that up with fancy lies, the world might be a better place.

December 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Gil - I went to the NY Times link that you had referenced, and it came up "page not available." I agree, Frank sounds extremely jealous. But just because Frank seems to be angry and jealous of this wealthy woman, that doesn't mean that liberals, in general, feel the same way. He doesn't speak for all of us any more than Ann Coulter speaks for all conservatives. I don't have a problem with this woman having someone else carry a baby for her, and paying for this service. But from the information that you've posted, and from Franks column, I would have to say that what does bother me is that instead of quietly going about her business, she has turned this into somewhat of a media circus, by writing a full length story complete with pictures. Why would someone want to do that?

December 12, 2008 at 3:42 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was wondering if YOU had seen the movie. I was comparing YOU (not Kuczynski) to Robert Duvall's character (with all the phony moralization and hypocrisy)

I like the Rocky Marc-iano reference. Only, he fought heavyweights, and you right-wingers are all a bunch of lightweights that crumble after a "left" hook.

December 12, 2008 at 3:53 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Not Rocky Marciano.

There was this guy who used to post here named David Diano.

He had his posting privileges suspended after he freaked out over a Spencerblog post concerning Rep. Barney Frank and he got all hysterical. He also went whining to our editor.

Diano didn't like our questioning of Frank's bad judgement of trolling for love in all the wrong places. Frank ended up with a gay prostitute who ran a prostitution ring out of his apartment.

For some reason Diano found the rehash of Frank's past very upsetting. After he was suspended, he swore never to post here again. He even went to the trouble of removing all his old posts in protest. Imagine that!

And yet, since then we have had in our midst an "Anonymous" poster who sounds an awful lot like this David Diano person.

Though, we never met Diano, he was described to us as "kind of short and flamboyant," almost the exact opposite of the old champ.

Hard to imagine the Rock throwing such a hissy fit in defense of a gay congressman, let alone his famous left hook.

Anon-iano, we think, has much less in common with Rocky than he dreams.

December 12, 2008 at 5:38 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Gil - I still can't find her story. Am I wrong in thinking that she exploited the pregnancy to get a story? I can't help thinking that if she was boasting about going white water rafting, skiing and swigging bourbon during the pregnancy, that she was inviting criticism. If you can find her story, please send a link. I'd like to hear her side of the story.

December 12, 2008 at 9:52 PM 
Anonymous r said...

I remember when that Diano guy used to post here. I also recall when Mr. Shields wanted to box him in a ring, Diano wet himself at the thought of coming out from behind his computer and offered all sorts of cowardly wiggling excuses why he wouldn’t.

Same thing happened when he was invited out for beers. Lol…

December 13, 2008 at 2:59 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Try it now and decide for yourself.

December 13, 2008 at 8:21 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Funny. I dont remember seeing Randal there when Gil invited everyone out for beers.

December 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Gil - Thanks for the link. I am now ready to render a decision.

It was a fascinating story. She comes across as being a very honest, up front, caring and inteligent woman. After reading the entire story, I would conclude that it was written out of a need to exlpain to people, why she did what she did. Good for her. As I said in my first post, I had no problem with her decision to have a surogate carry the baby to term, I just wasn't sure why she would publicize it. Now it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why a liberal writer would bash her for the story, and why some of your more conservative posters would support her. A trip through the looking glass? I get the feeling that if the Randal types had thoroughly read the story, they wouldn't be as supportive. I would love to hear Father Shields take on this.

December 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM 
Anonymous Soylent Blue State said...

you are clueless fishermen about identity of anonymous. diano injured his hand about a month ago helping a friend with some furniture. i sat at his table at last week's delco democrats victory party. his friends do read and post here. there is more than one anonymous poster. over 170,000 people in delco voted for obama. 169,999 guesses to go.

December 13, 2008 at 8:58 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob wrote: "Funny. I dont remember seeing Randal there when Gil invited everyone out for beers."

If the health inspector came around first, Randal may have been removed. Sicken the customers with his ideology may have broken some health codes.

December 13, 2008 at 10:37 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

We are all, of course, very sorry to hear Anon-iano hurt his hand.

Did he hurt it so bad he can't work? Or type?

But we are happy to hear Anon-iano has friends. You must be one of them. Sounds like you take dictation.

If you really are a friend of his, and not just another Anon-iano sock puppet, could you answer this question about him:

Is he as short and flamboyant as we've been told?

December 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear about Mr. Diano. Wish him well for us. However, it does kind of spoil our ruse, as we altered our posting style a few weeks ago when "r" and the gang started mistaking us for him, to prove a point (see below).

Since we couldn't find his postings here, we did an Internet search and found some of his Sestak and other blog stuff. The arguments he made were the same as ours, and Bob's and a few others. The only things we really noticed to distinguish his posts were that he was pretty good with grammar, capitalization and punctuation, and he didn't hesitate to call a bigot a bigot. If we boost Bob's spelling and stuff, it's the same arguments we make (and the entire Dem party makes).

The only area where we really disagreed with Mr. Diano was in using his name vs anonymous. As evidenced by Spencer, R and others, once they associate a person with a viewpoint, they not only get rabid but they make assumptions outside of the argument and ignore the merits (and engage in personal attacks). Similarly, when one sees a post by r, there is the immediate assumption of bigotry or lunacy. When Scott posts, the baseline is that he's a religious zealot.

We decided to take the approach of the Founding Fathers, who used "Publius" to author the Federalist Papers. The ideas and arguments should stand on their own, without regard to who made them. We think the Founding Father would have viewed something like the Internet as everyone having their own printing press.

The "point" (for those that missed it) is that knowing the poster biases your reading of their post.

There are cases, like when recommending a product, that the identity of the advocate should be known to avoid conflicts of interest. But when it comes to debating American values, Anonymous is the blog version of Publius.
Besides, we might want to run for office someday and don't want our blogs, myspace, facebook, etc. used against us.

December 15, 2008 at 12:12 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

"Besides, we might want to run for office someday and don't want our blogs, myspace, facebook, etc. used against us."

Or comments... Finally, an explantion for all those self-removed Diano posts.

Good luck with that political career.

December 15, 2008 at 7:33 AM 
Anonymous r said...

But we are happy to hear Anon-iano has friends.

Yeah! Who woulda guessed?!

You must be one of them. Sounds like you take dictation.

LMAO! Yeah, in more ways than one!

(I'm still not buying it, DDD/ Anon X3.)

December 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Lib idiocy indeed stands on its own merits regardless of who posts it.

December 15, 2008 at 11:00 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We were actually referring to a lawyer we know who blogs and ran for judge once. As for Diano removing his posts to run for office, that makes NO sense, since his Sestak and other blogs haven't been removed. After what he posted about Sestak, he couldn't get himself elected dog catcher.

We guess you are suffering from "Diano Derangement Syndrome". (Yes, referencing your Kennedy derangement nonsense elsewhere.)

You banned Diano. You post our stuff and the other Anons. Therefore, you don't really believe any of us are him, but you are in fact fishing to find out who we really are. Though I think you are really "r".

Bob wrote: "Funny. I dont remember seeing Randal there when Gil invited everyone out for beers." Probably because they are the same person. Gil gets to post wild stuff under the "r" pseudonym and not pay the price.

December 15, 2008 at 12:37 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Anon-iano was not banned. He was suspended.

We don't fish. We mock.

So once again, good luck with that political career.

December 15, 2008 at 6:31 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

This is getting a bit insane. We should start calling this the Paranoid Post.
ANON SAID " If we boost Bob's spelling and stuff, it's the same arguments we make (and the entire Dem party makes)." Maybe Anon should proof read his own posts before being critical of others.

As for posting as Anon so as not to have past posts destroy a political career, that seems a bit unethical to me. If you are starting off on that foot, maybe you'd better stay out of politics. We already have our share of hypocrits in office.

December 15, 2008 at 9:05 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People change their minds on issues. Look at Mitt Romney who was pro-choice and once claimed he was a better friend for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. For a guy that wants to be a judge someday, an offhand comment or joke in poor taste could be taken out of context as biased in a campaign, even if the comment was made when he was a student.
Look at how the GOP dug up a college report Michelle Obama did on some controversial figure, and tried to play it as though she admired that person.

Bob, no offense meant on your spelling when we should have used the term "typos". We were trying to compliment your reasoning while make a distinction with style issues. We certainly never meant to imply that you couldn't spell.

Banned vs suspended? A distinction without a difference.
We finally tracked down your key rules, from September (thank you Google):
1) "Until he [Diano] contacts me personally and apologizes, his posting privileges here will remain suspended."

2) "Additionally, and to be fair, any comments bashing Diano will also be rejected out of hand."

Well, rule #2 gets broken on a regular basis. And as for rule #1, you've got a better shot scoring a lap dance from Palin.

Back to your fish vs mock vs logic:
1) Mocking Diano doesn't mock us. But, it does break your Rule #2.

2) If you really believed we were Mr. Diano, then your demand for an apology in Rule #1 was empty and you invalidated it with the first posting you allowed that you mistook for one of his. Logic.

3) If Diano were posting, without apologizing, he would be the mocker and you the mockery. Again, violation of Rule #1.

4) Strictly speaking, by tying rules #1 and #2 together and claiming your own "fairness", and then repeatedly breaking Rule #2 there is only one logical result: Rule #1 has been so repeatedly invalidated that Mr. Diano is no longer suspended.

Instead of pretending to ban (oops, we mean "suspend") posters, just filter out the offensive postings.

Here are your two choices:
1) Official un-suspend Mr. Diano, since you've been un-officially dropping the suspension every time you thought we were he.
2) Continue to pretend you are suspending someone who you think is still posting (and look foolish for doing so).

Hint: if you suspend us, it doesn't change all the times you thought we were Mr. Diano and you let us post anyway, so you've already lost with choice #2.

The semester is over next week anyway. Merry Christmas (or Happy War on Christmas) to Mr. Diano
1) for either getting his suspension undone
2) for continuing to make Spencer look foolish via his persistent legacy

December 16, 2008 at 12:07 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Rules? RULES? There ain't no rules in a blog fight!

The suspension on Anon-iano was lifted despite his profanity-laced hissy fit, because it pleased me to do so.

His nutty ideas are fun for others to bat around.

Obviously, once the the suspension was lifted and we started making fun of Anon-iano for posting anonymously (not to mention his bizarre removal all his previous comments from this blog - others were free to make fun of him as well.

Besides, we do so enjoy Anon-iano's pretending not to be who he is but someone who thinks the world of this man, Diano and his brilliant ideas.

He is nothing if not entertaining.

Yes, "Happy War on Christmas," Anon-iano. You make glad the heart of bloghood.

December 16, 2008 at 8:42 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Anon - You use Romney as an example, and thats my point. If you had different ideas at one time, I want to know about them. I dont want you to hide it from me, because to do so deprives me of making an educated decission at the polls. The more I know about someone who is running for office, the better I feel about my decission. Being secretive is not my idea of starting out on the right foot. I understand where you are coming from. Do you understand where Im coming from?

December 16, 2008 at 9:08 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

Where would we be without Sociology majors?

Still, I believe anonymous-iano owes Gil an Apology for going off the deep end on the Barney Frank statements. There was zero gay bashing in Gil's post. I repeat ZERO (The mind sees what the mind wants to see)

Second, anonymous-iano owes all of us at Spencerblog an apology for insulting our intelligence, coming around and posting as "anonymous" despite claiming never to return to this "blog of bigotry". Personally, he wrote to me that he was "done" with this place. Than why not stay away? Go to your Daily KOS or Huffington Post and be happy!

Posting as anonymous despite cleqrly showing your true colors through your writings renders all the criticizm it can get.

December 16, 2008 at 10:11 AM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

one more thing about extreme liberals like ananymous-iano - they clearly carry the mantra of never being wrong and refuse to come down to earth and show an ounce of humility , their pride's too inflated to do so. And THAT is why CHANGE can never be theirs.

December 16, 2008 at 10:15 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Look at that long petty post up there! Lol...

If I may break Rule #1...
I believe DDD is really a whiny little girl.

December 16, 2008 at 11:01 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Oops. I meant Rule #2.

(sometimes just reading his stuff makes me dumber!)

December 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gee, there were only two rules and you couldn't even keep that straight.

If you were any dumber, your brain wouldn't know how to keep your heart beating or you'd forget how to breath.

December 16, 2008 at 12:42 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

R said "(sometimes just reading his stuff makes me dumber!)"

Is that possible?

December 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Its like shooting fish in a barrell.

December 16, 2008 at 1:21 PM 
Anonymous r said...

If I were any dumber I’d try to convince everyone here that my wacko backwards Lib views were being supported here by a number of frat boys who all just happen to share my writing style and limp sense of humor. And if I were really dumb I'd try to keep up the lame ruse even after I had been busted! Lol…

December 16, 2008 at 1:24 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Its like shooting fish in a barrell.

This is how we like your posts, BB. Short.

Oh, and it's barrel.


December 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well r, we guess you are dumb enough to go along with Spencer's ideas on who we are and his hypocrisy in thinking he was secretly allowing a suspended poster to post.
The reality is that:

1) Spencer banned Mr. Diano pending an apology.

2) The only "apology" I'm aware of that Spencer ever got was posted in public on Mr. Diano's own blog.

3) Spencer is now claiming that he had already lifted the suspension despite having never received the apology he demanded (and quite the opposite).

The result is a moral victory for Mr. Diano and final proof for the rest of us that wanted to reveal Spencer's true colors.

The semester is ending and our work here is done.

This is our FINAL posting. Going out on a HUGE and TOTAL win, without any neocons correctly identifying any of us. You've been pwn3d.

Merry Christmas to Bob, and to all a good night.

We now return Spencerblog to the ghost town it was.

December 17, 2008 at 1:37 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

So, it's so long to Anon-iano and his "team" of sociology-class sock puppets?

His angry and amusingly unhinged comments will be missed.

But we suspect he will be unable to help himself. His obsession is too pronounced and advanced.

However, if he has decided to get some sort of therapy and really does go Spencerblog comment cold turkey we wish him the best in his recovery.

p.s. We regret we had to block one of his final posts. It contained an unacceptable profanity.

December 17, 2008 at 7:13 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Thats my gift to you Randal. Merry Christmas.

December 17, 2008 at 8:40 AM 
Anonymous r said...

But we suspect he will be unable to help himself. His obsession is too pronounced and advanced.

Yeah, he can’t stay away. Obsessive sociopath Libs like DDD have this burning need to share their Lib idiocy with others. He’d go crazy(er) if he didn’t have an outlet. And no one reads his blog.

G, have your IT chick check poster IPs. This will end the DDD frat boy farce once and for all.

December 17, 2008 at 10:59 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home