Wednesday, August 23rd | 1 Elul 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
May 14, 2012 2:44 pm

Somebody PLEASE Supply Michelle Goldberg with Free Contraceptives

avatar by Moshe Averick

Email a copy of "Somebody PLEASE Supply Michelle Goldberg with Free Contraceptives" to a friend

Journalist Michelle Goldberg. Photo: wikipedia.

On March 13, 2012  I posted a column on this site, that among other things decried the notion that US taxpayers should be forced to subsidize the sex lives of female citizens by paying for their contraceptives. I have changed my mind. It has now become clear that it is in our national interest to do everything in our power to ensure that certain women never become mothers. One of these women is Newsweek/Daily Beast contributor Michelle Goldberg.

In a recent MSNBC interview Ms. Goldberg, while belching out standard radical-feminist talking points, launched a vicious attack on Ann Romney. What was Ann Romney’s horrible sin? Very simple, she praised a noble human institution called “motherhood!”  Here is what Ann Romney had to say in a USA Today piece:

Cherish your mothers. The ones who wiped your tears, who were at every ball game or ballet recital. The ones who believed in you, even when nobody else did, even when maybe you didn’t believe in yourself. Women wear many hats in their lives. Daughter, sister, student, breadwinner. But no matter where we are or what we’re doing, one hat that moms never take off is the crown of motherhood. There is no crown more glorious.

Can you imagine the nerve of Ms. Romney?! I’m surprised that in protest to such inflammatory remarks the Earth itself didn’t simply cease spinning on its axis. The stars in the Milky Way galaxy should have blinked out in disgust! But ye lovers of truth and justice take heart; even though heaven and Earth meekly refused to react, journalist Michelle Goldberg courageously took up the cudgel and struck back with the following:

Related coverage

August 22, 2017 8:50 pm
0

Alan Dershowitz: The President Has a Special Obligation to Condemn the Racist Right

All decent Americans have an obligation to condemn the violent bigotry of the Nazi and KKK demonstrators in Charlottesville or...

You know, yes, motherhood is beautiful, I found that phrase ‘the crown of motherhood’ really kind of creepy, not just because of its, like, somewhat you know, I mean, it’s kind of usually really authoritarian societies that give out like The Cross of Motherhood, that give awards for big families. You know, Stalin did it, Hitler did it.”

Ann and Mitt Romney with their family. What type of sick and twisted mind would associate this with Stalin and Hitler?!

The fact that Goldberg could actually speak the names of Stalin and Hitler in the same breath as Ann Romney’s praise of motherhood offers us a clear window into her own twisted and diseased soul. Michelle Goldberg should never be allowed to be a mother; she would probably raise little monsters. I am therefore starting a “Contraceptives for Michelle Goldberg” fund to make sure that if she doesn’t have children already, she never will, and if she already does, that she will never have any more. Please mail in checks made out to “Contraceptives for Michelle” to Newsweek, The Daily Beast, and MSNBC. Unfortunately these contributions are not tax-deductible, but hey…for a good cause we should all be prepared to sacrifice.

Rabbi Moshe Averick is an orthodox rabbi, a  regular columnist for the Algemeiner Journal, and author of Nonsense of a High Order: The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist. It is available on Amazon.com and Kindle. Rabbi Averick can be reached via his website. If you wish to be informed when new articles appear, send an email to moe.david@hotmail.com with the email address and the word  “Subscribe” in the subject line.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • salvage

    Wow Steve, I think this may be the first post anyone has ever made that you didn’t answer, several times, try again:

    What socialist policy has Obama enacted that has failed?

    • I mean failed to do good for the country.

      Of course, from Obama’s destructive point of view, he probably considers them successes in “transforming American” from freedom toward totalitarian rule.

      If you want examples, pick any of his programs or policies you feel like. (ARRA and PPACA are two prime examples.)

      • If you wished to bankrupt the country, you wouldn’t need any change from the socialist Bush-Obama policies.

        On the other hand, the best interests of America require a radical rejection of those socialist policies — in favor of freedom and individual rights. Obama is certainly the wrong man for the job, but the problem is that Romney doesn’t look up to it, either.

  • {}{} RexTugwell (May 16, 2012 9:54 pm): “I’m still waiting for an answer to how all the information (FCSI) necessary for life (protein encoding, protein synthesis, replication, metabolism, etc) got into the first living cell in the first place.” {}{}

    Since there was no “specified information” in the “first living cell,” you could wait forever and there would still be no possibility of having an answer for your invalid question (except to point out that your premise is unsound).

    • Specified information requires a specifier, viz., an intelligent being, that is, a living being — which naturally had to evolve from the first living thing.

      • The point is: intelligence could not have come before the first living thing.

  • RexTugwell

    Aquinas was right: Sin darkens the intellect and hardens the will.

    • That’s what explains blind (i.e., religious) faith.

      When you darken the light of the intellect, then only path that seems left is to will yourself very hard to believe in the magical, the supernatural.

  • Eli

    Still waiting for a reply…

    When making generalizations, is it logical to distinguish between material intelligent beings and “other” intelligent beings or not?

    If not, then the intelligent beings that create Hotwheels and sonnets demonstrate that all intelligent beings contain FCSI, just as you argue that Hotwheels and sonnets demonstrate that all FCSI is created by intelligent beings.

    If so, then FCSI is only the product of material intelligence as Hotwheels, sonnets, and all of your examples demonstrate.

    So, which is it?

    • RexTugwell

      All intelligent beings produce FCSI. ID proponents make no claims as to whether intelligence contains FCSI. Although that may be the case but not necessarily. In the case of the creator, since the cause of the material universe has to be something other than material, there is no complexity in that cause. It is utterly simple. No parts. Parts are a limitation that are subject to entropy and decay. God has no such limitation. In fact, the term “specified” in FCSI, indicates an outside intelligence doing the specifying. There can be no outside intelligence that specifies information in God. No theist I know allows that possibility.

      I’m still waiting for an answer to how all the information (FCSI) necessary for life (protein encoding, protein synthesis, replication, metabolism, etc) got into the first living cell in the first place.

      That fact that materialists like Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins suggest alien life as being the possible cause of life here on earth, implicitly admit that intelligence is the only way to explain the information in the first living cell.

      • }}} “No parts. Parts are a limitation … God has no such limitation.” {{{

        Of course it’s true that “God has no parts” — since it takes “parts” to exist. So you are claiming that your God has no means of specifying anything.

        Well, I suppose you want to say He does it magically, but that amounts to the same thing as no means to do it.

      • {}{} “… the cause of the material universe has to be something other than material,… {}{}

        In other words, that alleged “cause” has to be unreal, i.e., not there.

        Calling it “the supernatural” doesn’t make it any more real than nothing: it’s still simply fantastic.

      • {}{} “… intelligence is the only way to explain the information in the first living cell.” {}{}

        You’ve got it backwards. Historically and scientifically, the “information in the first living cell” is the only way to explain intelligence.

        Your way is like trying to claim that the navy is the only way to explain the oceans.

      • Eli

        “All intelligent beings produce FCSI.”

        That’s not what ID claims. ID claims that all FCSI is the product of intelligence. This is based on the generalization that inanimate complex objects are made by material, intelligent beings; therefore, complex, living things are the product of an immaterial, intelligent being. The distinctions between inanimate vs living and material vs immaterial intelligence are ignored, hence my question.

        ” ID proponents make no claims as to whether intelligence contains FCSI.”

        I know. I am making that claim based on the same logic as above.

        “In the case of the creator, since the cause of the material universe has to be something other than material.”

        Or the material Universe has existed forever. Neither of us know.

        “No parts. Parts are a limitation that are subject to entropy and decay. God has no such limitation.”

        How does something with “no parts” create matter?

        “In fact, the term “specified” in FCSI, indicates an outside intelligence doing the specifying.”

        Exactly. Which is why ID is a circular argument.

        “There can be no outside intelligence that specifies information in God. No theist I know allows that possibility.”

        That’s because every theist you know is doing what you are doing and making up assumptions that lead to your desired conclusion.

        “I’m still waiting for an answer to how all the information (FCSI) necessary for life (protein encoding, protein synthesis, replication, metabolism, etc) got into the first living cell in the first place.”

        I don’t have the answer. Clearly you don’t either.

        “That fact that materialists like Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins suggest alien life as being the possible cause of life here on earth, implicitly admit that intelligence is the only way to explain the information in the first living cell.”

        Obviously if aliens were the cause of life on Earth then the first living cell on Earth would not be the “first living cell” in the Universe. So, the question then becomes where the aliens came from, which FC and RD have acknowledged.

        • {]{]How does something with “no parts” create matter? {}{}

          No way.

        • RexTugwell

          Or the material Universe has existed forever.

          Don’t be silly

          • What do you think is “silly” about the idea of something existing?

            There never could have been nothing, or else we wouldn’t have something now. So doesn’t that mean there was always something?

            What seems silly is the claim that it is not nature that is eternal, but some supernatural ghost.

    • }}} … is it logical to distinguish between material intelligent beings and “other” intelligent beings or not? {{{

      Only in the sense that there are no “‘other’ intelligent beings.”

      Actual (i.e., material) intelligent beings are the only possible kind.

  • ___ “The God who created us knows what’s best for our happiness.” ___

    That is not true. Neither is it true that Obama knows best, or that FDR did, or Napoleon. Not to mention that Nixon and Hitler didn’t know “what’s best for our happiness.” Nor Allah or the Pope.

    The notion that any religious or political leader “knows what’s best for our happiness” is crazy — even when they actually exist. The notion that some non-existent God “knows what’s best” is not an improvement.

  • RexTugwell

    I don’t understand the aversion to obedience that some of the godless have. After all, don’t we all want to be obedient to the laws (with some exceptions) of our great nation? Imagine our society if few ever obeyed the civil and criminal laws. Yes, obedience is good. Obedience means order and safety and freedom. If one can see the benefits of obedience to civil law, why do the blinders come on when speaking of obedience to the moral law? The God who created us knows what’s best for our happiness.

    And everyone lives by the moral law. You can say, like Jerry Coyne, that there is no moral law but saying so and living as such are two different things. Those on the right consider abortion to be a moral evil while those on the left consider lack of “choice” to be a moral evil. Torturing babies for fun and profit could be a moral point upon which we agree. The point is that there is an objective moral law and obedience to that law means freedom as well. True freedom doesn’t mean doing what we want. True freedom means doing what we ought. Again, think of it in civil terms. If we obey the law of the land, we are free to not be imprisoned.

    As human beings, we are free to choose to act in whatever way we wish but we do not have the freedom to choose the consequences of those actions. Sure, we’re free to fornicate all we want; we are not free remain without STDs. We are free to commit adultery; we are not free to have a happy marriage. We are free to steal; we are not free to remain outside of prison (or from having a criminal record at the very least).

    • ** “If we obey the law of the land, we are free to not be imprisoned. **

      Former slave Frederick Douglass advised: “Find out just what people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. … The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

      http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williamns051612.php3

  • Emma

    “Savulescu also defended the article by pointing out that ‘infanticide is practiced in the Netherlands’ and that these arguments have already been advanced by well known ‘bioethicists’ such as Peter Singer and Michael Tooley. ‘The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics …is to present well reasoned arguments based on widely accepted premises…the authors proceed logically from arguments which many people accept.’ Of course, in Nazi Germany the premise that Jews were a mortal threat to the Aryan people was also a ‘widely accepted’ premise and genocide was practiced in Nazi Occupied Europe and Russia.”
    – Moshe Averick, “Dr. Mengele Would Have Been Proud” (!)

    Am I the only one who finds it amusingly ironic that Moshe has no qualms about comparing his *own* targets to Hitler (also known on the internet as “pulling a Godwin”), but shrilly denounces anyone else who engages in it?

    • Moshe Averick

      Emma,

      The difference, of course, being that the policy of infanticide and “after-birth” abortions, which is a bio-ethicist term for murdering unwanted babies, are justifiably comparable to the policies of Hitler and Stalin, while praising the concept of being a proud, devoted mother is not.

      • “One of the earliest laws passed by Hitler once he came to power in 1933, was the Law for the Encouragement of Marriage. This law stated that all newly married couples would get a government loan of 1000 marks which was about 9 months average income. 800,000 newly weds took up this offer. This loan was not to be simply paid back. The birth of one child meant that 25% of the loan did not have to be paid back. Two children meant that 50% of the loan need not be paid back. Four children meant that the entire loan was cleared.”

        http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Women_Nazi_Germany.htm

  • The direction that people like Michelle Goldberg takes, the direction that they lead others in and towards which our society tends, is the direction of those who have lost sight of their primary purpose as human beings. The primary purpose of men and women, despite the atheistic view by which folks willfully and spiritually stick their heads in the sand, is to worship and be obedient to our Creator. People like Rabbi Averick are good enough to point this out in various ways. They should be supported by those of us, regardless our religious particulars, as defenders of true humanity and what is REAL freedom. And how much are U.S. tax payers “forced” to give Israel? As a U.S. taxpayer, as a person who tries hard via their Roman Catholic faith not to lose sight of their primary purpose, as one who tries to vote into office people that are PRO-Israel, I can tell you to the penny how much we contribute to Israel … Several billion less than we should! Maybe we could take all the money that the liberals in our society would like to force religious conservatives to “give” towards abortion and womanly “diseases” in order to combat that most dreaded of female health “issues” called “motherhood” and instead, what a thought I have here, give it to a people fighting for real freedom? And I mean Israel, not those fighting for so-called sexual freedom. Freedom, falsely so-called, from our Creator’s laws leads to nothing less than slavery. And THAT is true of Hitler’s and Stalin’s agenda. And don’t think for one moment that I don’t know what Hitler-like tactics are. I’m Native American. Cherokee. In the 30’s there was ONE foriegn politician that congratulated the U.S. government on how they had taken care of the “Indians”. That politician was Adolf Hitler. I would much rather see my tax money go towards keeping a people OFF a reservation, think “Ghetto”, than keeping others joyful in bed. Thank you, Rabbi Averick, for doing what you do. Pleasev keep doing it, and know that you do it right well.

    • ]] Unfortunately, for religionists “The primary purpose of men and women … is to worship and be obedient to our Creator.” [[

      It is that religious mindset that makes dictators like Hitler and Stalin possible. Dictators, like God, require obedience.

      On the other hand, what healthy humans need is freedom, including freedom from religion as well as the state.

      • Ed

        What!? Did you even stop to think before you spewed forth this drivel? Neither Stalin nor Hitler invoked God or religion while establishing their dictatorships. In fact, theirs was to be a society liberated from the restrictions of religion and its sensibilities. History has shown the folly of such thinking and the disaster where that leads. Next time you are at a gathering of likeminded thinkers, you might want to skip drinking their Kool-aid.

        • “We don’t ask the Almighty, ‘Lord, make us free!’ We want to be active, to work, to work together, so that when the hour comes that we appear before the Lord we can say to him: ‘Lord, you see that we have changed.’ The German people is no longer a people of dishonor and shame, of self-destructiveness and cowardice. No, Lord, the German people is once more strong in spirit, strong in determination, strong in the willingness to bear every sacrifice. Lord, now bless our battle and our freedom, and therefore our German people and fatherland.”

          – Adolf Hitler, Prayer, May 1, 1933

        • So not only are you historically wrong, Ed, but you ignored the point about obedience being the fertilizer for Gods and Dictators.

        • And not only did you get the history wrong and ignore the point, you did it rather inelegantly (sort of “drivelly” one might say, or even “spewfully”).

      • Mark Patterson

        The Creator provides a higher authority than any human institution and thus a legitimate way to question authority. At the same time such a belief encourages us to accept properly constituted governments.

        Steve’s appeal to freedom could easily lead to anarchism.

        • So you don’t dare to question the authority of any of the leaders who claim to be speaking for God? That’s a formula for disaster.

          And trying to link freedom to “anarchy” is a logical error. The two conditions are basically opposites; each leads away from the other, not towards.

          • {}{} “The Creator provides a higher authority …” {}{}

            Non-existent authority does sound like anarchy, though. History has shown that reliance on fantasies of the supernatural is a dangerous game.

        • salvage

          >The Creator provides a higher authority

          Which creator are you talking about? Odin? Zeus? Ptah?

  • We should skip this post, and go back to the more interesting Darwin commentary preceding it.

  • Kevin Bjornson

    Finally the rabbi has spoken out in a way that might actually help western civilization. Because without people, there is no civilization. Of course, for people to exist, there must be procreation.

    • Moshe Averick

      Kevin,

      I would add: not just “procreation” but the enobling of and promotion of marriage, family, and most important of all, motherhood. The Japanese are in danger of disappearing altogether because they don’t want to have children anymore, Europe is in danger of being overun by our modern day version of the barbarian tribes, radical Islam, because they don’t want to have babies anymore (that is not one of the problems in the Moslem world). The reason they don’t want to have babies is because of secular feminism.

      Materialism, self-gratification, self-indulgence, and sexual promiscuity are the order of the day. Nothing interferes with all of the above more than children. Children represent long term committment, loyalty, devotion, delayed gratification, and self-sacrifice; that is to say, focus on the “other” instead of on oneself. What a way to spoil the party.

      It is a desire for a culture of indulgence that is behind the whole promotion and acceptance of homosexuality. There is no greater culture of self-indulgence and sexual promiscuity than among male homosexuals.

      This issue goes much deeper than just “procreation.”

      • “You shall have no other gods before me…. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations …”

        God wasn’t a monotheist, but he was in favor of procreation.

        Also, people who consider it a sacrifice to have children, rather than an honor and a joy, are not giving their children a rational view of life.

        Believing that “kids spoil life” but God commands us to have them — well, that’s a really nasty outlook on life. (It’s not as nasty as “kids make good bombs,” but there’s no rational excuse for either view.)

  • Gerry Hirsch

    Very rarely do I agree with Rabbi Moshe Averick, but this time he is absolutely correct concerning the nonsense uttered by Michelle Goldberg. Gerry Hirsch

  • salvage

    US taxpayers should be forced to subsidize Israel by paying for their wars? That’s okay right?

    You do know it’s actually medical insurance companies that are being “forced” to pay for medicine right? Crazy! I know.

    >Michelle Goldberg should never be allowed to be a mother; she would probably raise little monsters.

    Ha! Ha! Yes! She would because she pointed out a historical fact!

    Are you stupid because you are a theist or are you a theist because you’re stupid?

    • RexTugwell

      Such hate and bile, salvage. Elad wouldn’t like it.

    • Moshe Averick

      Unsalvageable,

      As usual I appreciate your comments. If I get you upset I know I’m on the right track. If you start agreeing with me I know I’m in trouble. Thanks for keeping me on course.

      • salvage

        How many billions does Israel get from the US tax payer again?

        It’s so cute the way you get conveniently selective of your opinions and the way you don’t let facts get in they way.

        • ]]How many billions does Israel get from the US tax payer again? [[

          Not enough.

    • dutchboy27

      Are you the same savage from Savages anal itch cream?

  • Looks like the rabbi is trying to pull an Obama-like distraction from his failed ideology. Socialism in Obama’s case, and theism in Averick’s.

    • salvage

      What socialist policy has Obama enacted that has failed?

  • Wow… such hate and bile spoken by a Rabbi. This article is embarrassing and should be taken down. Whatever the validity of your actual point, it is completely overshadowed with the immense amount of anger and sarcasm you are writing with. Sad.

    • RexTugwell

      Lighten up, Elad. The good Rabbi was only having a little fun. Instead of anger and hate, I’m sure he was writing this column with a big smile on his face. I’m sure you do the same amount of pissing and moaning about the hate, bile and anger coming from liberals towards conservatives. Correct? Yeah, right.

    • Moshe Averick

      Elad,

      What is sad, Elad, is that someone like Goldberg, along with Lee Elsner whose play contained a scene glorifying a lesbian seducing an underage girl (but that’s all right because she’s a female) can attack a perfectly lovely tribute to motherhood, and compare Ann Romney to the policies of Hitler and Stalin, because the concept of motherhood as an inherent value offends their twisted feminist sensibilities. While Goldberg talks about how “creepy” Ann Romney’s words were, everything nods in approval like a bunch of Zombies.

      What actually would be comparable to Hitler and Stalin: How about China’s one-child policy where late term babies are forcibly murdered- Does Goldberg consider that to be “creepy?” What about killing thousands of late term babies because giving birth would be an invonvenience to the mother? That is much more comparable to Hitler and Stalin.

      I stand by what I wrote. Goldberg has a twisted and diseased soul.

      • \\ … where late term babies are forcibly murdered … That is much more comparable to Hitler and Stalin. //

        And comparable to God, too, don’t forget. Theistic baby-killing is one of the really rotten things that humans have too often felt they had a real mystical justification for.

      • salvage

        >r whose play contained a scene glorifying a lesbian seducing an underage girl

        And you worship a god that glorified genocide but like the play it’s a fiction… oh that’s the problem! You’re not very good at figuring out reality… right, never mind.

    • salvage

      Oh Elad, the Rabbi’s religion already gave him a foundation of misogyny he’s just building on it. He has an instant loathing of any woman who does more than prepare / clean up after the sabbath.

      And should she think her womb is her own? Loathing turns to absolute hatred.

  • LaInfidel

    I don’t think there are any males out there desperate enough to get on that. From every photo i have seen of here she always looks as though she needs a bath. You know most liberals are like people of other cultures and do not bathe on a daily basis. My guess is that she is a disgruntled lesbian.

    • salvage

      Ah, now that’s some classic misogyny with a dash of racism right there.

      Your target audience Mushe, be proud!

Algemeiner.com