Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Great utterances of hypocrisy in the 20th century: "They just don't get it"

Follow me back in time, if you dare:

In the late '80's and early '90's, there was a huge backlash against the newly-defined concept of "sexual harassment", neatly summarized by the comment about men made during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, which was that Men "just don't get it" when it comes to issues of sexual harassment in the workplace. There were endless newspaper and magazine articles, campus and workplace "Sexual Harassment" speech and behavior codes, new legislation, and a national dialogue denouncing all forms of unwanted and/or inapprorpriate advances.

Being at a majority-female college at the time, I heard about these developments constantly, as newly-empowered feminists indicted the male race, tried it, found it guilty, and sentenced it to a purgatory of "awareness" campaigns, seminars, trainings, pamphlets, and everything else. As this national frenzy crested its crescendo, Bill Clinton was elected president.

Now you can probably see where I'm going with this: Clinton subsequently gets nasty with an intern, is indicted for perjury, and the rest is history - but what was the national response to Bill Sleazy's actions? Suddenly, any and all disgust or even disapproval of this dalliance was itself denounced as simply too uptight, a hangover from the Victorian era, a byproduct of a culture hung up about sexuality, the Europeans were way cooler than us on extramarital matters, and on and on and on - in direct contradiction with the new commandments of the self-appointed feminist police.

In short, the "Sexual Harassment" movement/hysteria went deathly quiet the minute Mr. Bill's womanizing became common knowledge. Fascinating stuff, isn't it?

Al Gore Rhythms

So Al Gore wants us all to take a pledge, consisting of seven points of commitment, in the name of saving the Earth. Even the most generous interpretation of these pledge points bodes major and substantial shutdown of energy usage and industry, and only a fool could believe that these ideas are realistic, practical, and likely to be followed by the majority of Earth's population. So what the heck is Gore playing at?

Those who have likened the modern environmental movement to a new religion have hit the nail on the head; a generation of confused and mechanically rebellious people - imbued since their teens with the notion that capitalism and industry are evil and should be overthrown - have nowhere to turn in their quest for inner peace, having rejected "organized" religion as some sort of cult. Without any awareness of the irony of their position, they worship at the altar of "organizing" when it comes to protests against anything that veers away from the course of socialism, or the oppressed minority du jour. (Remember when that oppressed minority was the Jews? Now that they've managed to create a homeland, they are the new oppressors!) Of course, the legacy of broken homes and broken families created by the enablers of self-righteous indulgence during the sixties has a major role in this, but that's an analysis for a different essay.

Such lost souls can find comfort and solace in radical environmentalism, as it pits them squarely against their arch-enemies - capitalism and industry. By indulging an image of American Indians as spiritual guides who lived in an earthly paradise until the arrival of the European settlers - completely ignoring the realities of tribal warfare and a scorched-Earth hunting and gathering existence - modern youth can imagine themselves as righteous saviors in a mystical battle between mother earth and evil businessmen. This feeds the spirituality need, while simultaneously giving an axe to grind against modern life in general.

Furthermore, there is an undercurrent of support for the notion that humans in general are bad for the planet, and economic development is an enemy, rather than a mechanism for alleviating poverty. For all the concern about "the poor" that we are lectured on, few seem to understand that progress by itself doesn't cause pollution.

So now we have the spectacle of Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - presiding over a congress with approval ratings LOWER than those of much-maligned President Bush - excitedly signing to Gore's pledge. What will they tell their blue-collar supporters, union members, and industrial laborers when those people are thrown out of their jobs in coal and other newly-condemned industries? It's another of life's great mysteries how the Democrat party continues to enjoy voter loyalty from this group while jamming government-sized screws directly in their behinds.

Friday, July 06, 2007

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.