Cold Cuts
Outstanding topics of our times:Terrorism: The U.K.'s leadership is tying itself into knots trying to deny that the latest Muslim terrorism plots had anything to do with Muslim terrorists. Apparently, unless the perpetrators have sworn affidavits from Osama Bin Laden himself which state: "I am Osama Bin Laden, and I personally approve of this act of terrorism", Islam cannot be in any way connected.
The New York Times dutifully echoes this doublethink by referring to the would-be martyrs as "Disenfranchised South Asians" - just as the term "Illegal immigration" has apparently been pronounced illegal by the media, the word "Disenfranchised" is now deployed in a manner having nothing to do with its actual definition.
It will be amusing - up to a point, then dangerous - to watch the Times try and describe the nature of this "disenfranchisement" - and answer questions such as, "What does this 'disenfranchisement' consist of?", and "How did these people come to be so 'disenfranchised'?" - good luck finding 'root causes' with people who are fiercely determined to avoid seeing what is right in front of their faces.
********************************************
Abortion: Nothing has changed in the debates regarding this touchy subject, which is generally a good sign that most theoretical avenues have been explored already. Bereft of new strategies, abortion proponents must appeal to people's fears by claiming to speak in the interests of "Protecting" women, keeping the government "Out of people's bedrooms", and so forth.
First of all, how does abortion "Protect" women if half the aborted babies are themselves 'women'? Well, you say they're not 'really' women, since 'life' hasn't yet begun? This is the essence of the debate, which is that a fetus may or may not be a living thing. However, it's not difficult to settle this particular debate. If you think there is some merit to the consideration of when life "begins", then we need to consider what life is.
One way of defining something is to look at its opposite, so the question becomes, "What is the opposite of life?", and it's a pretty simple answer. Of course, fans of "nuance" claim this is too simple a definition, but attempting to complicate, and thus obfuscate matters, is a favored tactic of propagandists the world over. So yes, the opposite of life is indeed death, which means that a fetus, from the time of conception, is "Alive" according to any basic definition of "Life" - it has living cells, circulating blood, and mechanisms for feeding. Those who want to deny the obvious have to really stretch to accommodate their preordained conclusions.
Second, the phrase "Keeping the government out of the bedroom" is a catchphrase, and not a meaningful characterization of any actual debate. Using phrases that evoke stirring imagery while their assumptions are left vague is another useful propaganda tool, which appears to settle matters of logic and reason while doing nothing of the kind. If a murder takes place in "the bedroom", does that make it any less worthy of government intervention? If that argument can't be taken seriously, then neither can the whole "government out of the bedroom" construct.
*********************************
Race-based admissions policies and affirmative action: Social engineers continue to believe that tinkering with the makeup of entire communities is a worthwhile goal. Yes, it appears that some people really have nothing better to do. Let's forget for a moment the absurdity of encouraging "Minority-only" groups, causes, and cliques while screaming bloody murder at even the appearance of a "Whites-only" body - do social engineers really and truly wish to see an absolutely even makeup of the races in every crowd?
If this is so, then in order for the actual concept of "representation" to work in the way they seem to want, then we'll need to fire a substantial number of black basketball players, so that whites and other races can be brought in for the desired "balance" - since the black population is roughly 10% of the population, this will be a substantial number of blacks taken off the courts. In another example, we have been told over and over - usually with no data to support the contention - that blacks are "underrepresnted" in television and movies. I suppose some serious study will have to be undertaken to validate this claim so we can start firing the appropriate number of white producers, directors, actors, and cameramen - but I will be very surprised if the number of t.v. shows featuring black characters is far away from that 10% figure.
Besides, what about the Spanish-language channels? Since they are here in America, shouldn't they be required to display 10% black characters, as well? How come no one at "La Raza" is agreeing with this?
The "Representationism" movement is one of the most morally bankrupt of our time, and yet it continues to be taken seriously by otherwise intelligent adults, which is truly sad.
posted by ET @ 11:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home