Comments on: Yale Student’s Abortion Performing Arts Project a Hoax? Does it Matter?

By: Camcorders

Camcorders — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:10:42 +0000

Some very interesting and insightful thoughts. I like this.

By: you don't say...

you don't say... — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:07:22 +0000

wow. The person who starved a dog for art should be…ok, I won’t say what I wanted to say. That person should rot in jail! And be placed in the same mental ward for sociopaths as the yale student.

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:22:57 +0000

When I first saw this, it was in the morning before I went to work. I had a post about half written in the morning, when I got home and found out it was a hoax I still felt I had to write about it. I threw out my original post and started again. She still calims that it is real, but that she doesn’t really know if she was ever pregnant.
As far as how far someone will go for “art” just look at the example AA provided. Starving a dog for “art” is about as low as you can go.

By: you don't say...

you don't say... — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:39:16 +0000

I saw this last Friday and posted about it on my blog. Then took it down when I saw it was a hoax. I don’t want to give that student any more attention. I took art history and am really disappointed that making any kind of statement, no matter how deranged it is, can be considered “art” today.

What this student did or “thought about” doing is really really disturbing. I’m surprised no one has suggested putting her in a mental institution because she really sounds like a sociopath. Imagine if she has kids. What would she be willing to do for the sake of “art”?

By: Mr Pink Eyes

Mr Pink Eyes — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:42:46 +0000

Constitutional Lawyer, I have a “why” question for you. Why would you post this comment on this post? It has nothing to do with the topic.
The founding fathers were leary of a central government with too much power. One of them, Jefferson I think, I’m sorry I don’t remember which one, was even against the idea of a supreme court because he felt it would take rights of the states as sovereign away from them.
Please don’t call me a racist if I believe that the states don’t have the power that they were intended to have. That is just stupid.

By: Constitutional Lawyer

Constitutional Lawyer — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:17:06 +0000

Yes! Why on earth would anyone attend an impeachment rally for a president who lied this country into a war? Why would anyone want to impeach an administration that has repeatedly lied about torture and yet approved its use? (Until caught in an investigation). Why impeach a president who has thumbed his nose at international law and has called the Constitution “just a piece of paper.” Why impeach an administration that has been more secretive than any other administration in history? An executive branch that has eroded the civil liberties of American citizens? Why impeach a president that has allowed fraud, waste and abuse in Iraq (and has personally used his influence to win no-bid contracts corporations who are fleecing the US Treasury?) Why impeach a president who, in an effort to divert funds to defense contractors (not the troops on the ground), has gutted such programs as social security, fuel assistance, and prescription drugs for the elderly and poor? And, why impeach a president who personally lobbied for Medicare D – the largest windfall for big Pharma? I guess you’d have to be a real idiot to want put back into the hands of the people. Further, regarding marriage for gays. It was illegal in the US for whites to marry blacks until 1967, until the US Supreme Court struck down the Racial Integrity Act in Loving v. Virginia. As constitutional lawyer, I get extremely uneasy when I hear someone touting states’ rights – as you do re: Roe vs. Wade. States’ Rights is a code used by many to sugar coat denying minorities equal rights under the law. It took the US Supreme Court (federal court) to put an end to the eugenics laws in this country. Few dispute the legitimacy of that decision. The Court made its decision regarding reproductive rights – it is the law of the land. The US Supreme Court acts to safeguard the rights of those who lack the power held by the majority. The federal government can set the minimum protection afforded to a person; the states can act to extend more protection than the federal government – not less. Let’s not go back to the bad old days when states could dictate what goes on in our bedrooms. We have precious little right to privacy left – let’s keep what little bit we still have.

By: Deb

Deb — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:35:19 +0000

Some psychologists have said that liberalism really is a mental disorder, this woman seems to be proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Disgusting.

By: angryafrican

angryafrican — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 04:29:10 +0000

Art. People will do anything and try and call it art. Thinking that “shocking” us will somehow make it acceptable. In this same week we had a guy called Vargas from Costa Rica call his starving dog art. He caught a stray and put it in a cage with no food and water. And wanted to put it in a major show for people to see. And last year an “art” student got arrested at Logan in Boston for wearing something that looked like a bomb. But it was “art”.
Stupidity. I don’t know. I have a pretty open mind. But people. I don’t know. People maybe just don’t always deserve the benefit of the doubt.
This is a new low. Like you say – even thinking about it is just wrong.

By: Net

Net — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:35:47 +0000

AND Aliza Shvarts was valedictorian of Buckley School, 2004. Imagine that?

I liked this line of your post:

“Hell, I can’t even understand how anyone could even think something like this up.”

Do you think Yale would have accepted her idea if she instead chose to have three three-month pregnancies, showing the “remains” of her abortions in plexiglass cubes? Now THAT would not have been “art” either, but it sure would have told a story.

I agree with your blog’s title, Wake up America indeed!

Net
http://cathlete.net