Mark's Views, Perhaps — from behind my eyeballs
For quite a while, I’ve had in mind to pose such a question to make this point: I expect paedophilia will be the new gay, though paedophiles will hijack their own mainstream term.
Give it a few years. Not that many. It won’t take that much longer.
Then Andrée and I (and you?) will have another scarlet letter pinned to us: P.
Paedophobe
Well, see what you make of this: Read it all
Our need of community rages deep in our souls.
Even as our engagement with community turns increasingly artificial and imaginary.
So we unwittingly dumb down our definition of community in order to meet our expectations, desperate, stretching, grasping.
And the raging inferno of our need Read it all
The elderly man and I stood just outside the fog line on the busy-at-that-time two-lane highway. The strip of pavement between the fog line and the gravel is narrow at that point. The gravel shoulder is itself narrow before sloping down into the shallow, weedy ditch.
We have no crosswalk. We have no Ped Xing sign. We have no caution sign of any sort. We have no diminished speed zone. We have no Read it all
I saw myself in the mirror this morning.
My reflection reminded me of a pair of pants I had long, long ago. They were light blue (if not burnt orange). The legs flared (moderately) at the feet end. I think they were the only B3 (bell-bottom britches) I ever owned.
This morning I sadly noticed again that my pants now Read it all
Cal Thomas published yesterday,
Intellectually, I understand the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision that the First Amendment protects the most violent of video games.
Well, I don’t understand.
Because I thought the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech.
But I can’t see that it says so expressly:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So we’re “stuck” with going by what it actually says.
I still say the modern-day usage of the First Amendment has become mangled, perverted, and distorted.
And inconsistent. For example, how does the government get away with fining broadcasters for using certain language on the air waves? And for another example, how come imaginary hate speech isn’t protected?
Politics.
Humanity.
Imperfection.
Oh well.
I must say, though, that I’m very thankful for the First Amendment.
And I’ll also say that I agree with Mr. Thomas’ closing statements:
In a perfect world, children would listen to, respect, and obey their parents. But this is far from a perfect world and parents could use occasional help from the state in preventing violent culture from undermining what’s in the best interest of the child, and the country. This ruling by the Supreme Court does not achieve that end.
Here’s a piece of a piece at American Thinker:
| We can replace almost anything in our lives — human organs, currency and credit, electronic records and documents – but ultimately these things do not define life.
What matters in life is the yearning of the human spirit for goodness and truth and the courage and grit to make that yearning into deeds and words that matter. Men who personify these values, unlike hearts and dollars, are irreplaceable. It is not they who have died: They are immortal. It is rather us who die each time one of these rare few leave this world. We have forgotten, in our busy rush to nowhere, how to replace the irreplaceable. |
If they don’t make them like they used to, why not?
And who will?
Next, personalize the matter: “Am I rare or run-of-the-mill? Would I be placed in the irreplaceable category?”
How would you go about replacing the “irreplaceable”?
In yesterday’s news, this report of people playing with words and culture and other such stuff:
| Pregnant man gives birth to girl
A US man who was born a woman before undergoing gender realignment surgery has given birth to a baby girl, US media reported. Thomas Beatie, who is legally male but decided to keep his female sex organs during chest reconstruction surgery and testosterone therapy, attracted worldwide attention in April after revealing his pregnancy. The 34-year-old gave birth to a baby girl at a hospital in Bend, Oregon, on June 29, People Magazine reported Thursday. “The only thing different about me is that I cant breastfeed my baby. But a lot of mothers dont,” the magazine quoted him as saying. |
I’d say her (because that’s what she is, folks!) “gender realignment” surgery hardly qualifies as a success.
She had chest reconstruction surgery and testosterone therapy — and that makes her legally male?!
She decided to keep her female reproductive organs…and she’s still considered a man?!
Please.
And people still accept the whole charade.
OK.