Strange Standards
So, Volkswagen is in trouble again, this time because they tested the affects of diesel fumes on monkeys (and humans). At the same time, the U.S. Senate blocked a bill to protect children above the age of 20 weeks. The 20 week limit was premised on the principle of experiencing pain, the idea that a baby can feel pain at 20 weeks and, thus, deserves protection. "Nope!" our fine Senate declared.
Message received, loud and clear. "Protect the monkeys! But, hey, kill the babies if you want."
Safe, Legal, and Rare
Speaking of abortion, Ireland is on the edge of repealing their defense of the most vulnerable. Ironically, Children's Minister Katherine Zappone said "I hope we will live together in an Ireland someday soon where abortion is safe, legal and rare." (That's what a "Children's Minister" hopes???) We, of course, have heard the phrase repeatedly from American pro-abortionists (who often prefer to be called "pro-choice"), but it makes no sense. Who would ever say, "I hope we will live together in a world someday soon where murder is safe, legal and rare"? Well, apparently a lot of people.
(A devastatingly sad note in the story was about how "Ninety per cent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in Britain are aborted. In Denmark, 98% of children like my son are aborted, with Iceland now reporting a close to 100% abortion rate for babies with Down syndrome." When we open the door to terminating life because we determine that they will be "defective", "nonproductive", "ugly", or "too much trouble", who is next?)
Things that make you go "Huh?"
An unnamed woman was denied permission to bring her ... wait for it ... "emotional support peacock" on her United flight. United said, "This animal did not meet guidelines for a number of reasons, including its weight and size. We explained this to the customers on three separate occasions before they arrived at the airport." I just ... huh? An "emotional support" peacock?? And, of course, the supremacy of "I feel ... therefore I'm right and should be afforded all the privilege I demand ..."
Methinks They Doth Protest Too Much
There was an uproar this week over two models in Vogue, a British fashion magazine. Gigi and Bella Hadid each had a cover shot for two versions of the magazine, but inside the edition the two posed nude together, creating a backlash. One response was, "This is a fashion magazine; 'nude' is not a fashion." Okay, fine. But the real outrage was "it is definitely inappropriate to have sisters posing naked together."
Now, hang on, people. Haven't we already decided that women are not objects and that sex is whatever you want it to be and that no one has any right to pass judgment for anything at all in that arena? You've undefined marriage, stripped away sexual morality, glamorized sex in every facet, and undercut any argument for anything resembling "common decency" in sexual matters, and now you want to complain when they show two naked sisters in a fashion magazine? You're going to have to do better than that, people. If you're not careful you'll begin to sound just like the Christian morality you despise.
There's an app for that
We live in a radical new world where sexual morality is defined "on the go", so to speak, a running redefinition every day. At its core, for the most part, is the simple principle of "consent". No consent? No sex ... at all. Consent? Anything goes ... at all. But ... what is "consent"?
We are victims of this post-modern undefinition of language, so we have to find some way to remedy the problem of consent. How do you know? Don't worry; there's an app for that. That's right. Now they have an app you can put on your phone that will give consent or not. (In a world where asking the question is sometimes considered sexual abuse, I don't know how this will help, but ...) The app "allows for private and contemporaneous recording of evidence" if you are being assaulted in some way and documents if she gave consent to prevent the "he said/she said" problem. There you go! A solution to all this sexual mayhem! Or not.
4 comments:
Not sure how legalizing abortion makes it become less frequent. Most things that are illegal prevent people from doing them for fear of being caught or the difficulty of finding the service desired. Before the legalization of marijuana, I wouldn't have known where to get some. Now, there's a store just down the street from me. Now, if I was mildly interested in getting high, I can do so easily, where as before it would take much more effort. Make about legal and now women have a place they can go openly. That's going to reduce abortions?
I clicked on the Vogue link, and the entire piece was screenshots of tweets then they quoted the tweet right below the screenshot. Is this what journalism is reduced to?
No, David, they will educate these women on how to avoid pregnancy and this will make them more responsible, forward-thinking people. (You caught my sarcasm, right?)
Craig, that's been a disturbing trend for far too long. Since when was "What Twitter users thought" the key point and source of news?
I have no idea, but it’s not how i learned to do it back in the 80’s.
Post a Comment