Over at Salon.com there’s an article up about Richard Dawkins claiming that what he calls “mild pedophilia” (in his case, when a teacher put his hands down his shorts and fondled him) does no lasting harm to children. Is that your professional opinion there, Professor?
Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.
Oh, molesting children has a continuum that begins with “mild touching up.” He didn’t offer up the gradations beyond that, or at which point his extensive research into the area has shown that it does cause harm. I suppose it’s when the pedophile enjoys it too much. Oh, but wait, what’s that, Professor?
“I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said.
So for the record, Dawkins and the rest of us are in no position to “condemn” people of earlier eras by the standard of ours. I suppose he has changed the position he took in The God Delusion:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
I suppose he would have been okay had there been more “mild touching up” in the Old Testament. His position however is consistent with his worldview. With no objective grounding of morality we can justify whatever suits us at present. The only advice I offer him is: stay away from my son.
I stumbled upon this story today:
A newlywed wife was charged on Monday with second-degree murder for allegedly pushing her husband off a cliff in Glacier National Park during an argument just a week after they married.
Terrible…but wait for it…
“Nobody is shocked at all … She’d been telling people she knew she never wanted to be married, she just wanted to have a wedding, and that’s apparently what they were arguing about.”
Ideas have consequences.
I hope this report is completely mistaken. If not, it’s another example of the cancer of totalitarian secularism.
The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: “Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense…Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis…”.
Given the media’s thoroughly botched and incompetent coverage of the Boston manhunt, why should we give credence to the same media’s interpretation of their motives? Especially when the bomber’s own words, and words of their family, explicitly state that Islam was the motivator?
The world is upside down when Islamic terrorists can fly planes into buildings and it results in it being taboo to speak ill of Islam. But when people want to follow the Constitution they’re labeled extremists.
While reading about proposed gun control in NY, I read about the state not allowing people on Psychotropic drugs to buy guns. Those sound big and scary, but if you take Zoloft to reduce anxiety, or a sleeping pill, or even some anti-inflammatory medications, or even BENADRYL, then the state says you’re too mentally unsound to own a firearm. You can still drive a car, mind you, but no guns.
Which prompts the question: Are they going to make Police Departments fire all officers on those drugs?
My guess is no, because this is all politics. If they do not, it’s evidence that this is a political ploy to remove guns from law abiding citizens.
A Stomach virus has made the rounds in our house the last week. Nothing like wallowing on the couch in agony to interrupt the blogging.
On to the links!
There are drawbacks to social media, but one of the major benefits is how it can expose stories that in the past might not have made it through the media gatekeepers.
Case in Point: The Kermit Gosnell baby murders. Why wasn’t this front page news, with every detail picked through and covered like Newtown, Trayvon Martin, or even Jeffry Dahlmer?
Oh right, abortion doctors get a pass, I guess.
During senate hearings on gay marriage social media was saturated with red equal symbols and vocal lefties screaming for equality. When children in Newtown where gunned down, Facebook exploded for weeks in anger and rage and screams for gun control. But when hundreds of babies (and one woman) are butchered at the hands of a sick abortion doctor….crickets.
Think I’m over reacting? Go take a look at the pictures of dead babies in the trash, feet in jars, and the backs of their necks cut open, their spinal cords severed. Hear the stories of babies screaming as they are killed. Then get back to me.
I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention.
Yes. She really, really, really said that. As Robert VerBruggen dryly responded:
Makes sense. Similarly, national gun-policy people do not cover local crime in places like Aurora or Newtown.
Manuel Martinez, who fled communist Cuba, testified in Salem, Oregon before a committee of Senators on gun control.
Dan Sandini at Daylight Disinfectant writes:
Mr. Martinez escaped the brutal Communist regime in Cuba in 1954. His testimony included how citizens under Castro were first disarmed by legislation similar to that being shepherded along by Gun-Grabber in Chief Floyd Prozanski. Defenseless, many Cuban Citizens were later summarily slaughtered.
It’s the same in every county where oppression has arisen. Disarming the public opens the door to oppression. The issue is not hunting, or even self defense per se. An armed populace is intended to keep the Government from ever becoming tyrannical. Mr. Martinez recounts how the Cuban people lost their freedom:
In 1957 a Revolution … individuals … malicious individuals, masquerading as Democrats, revolutionaries, established a regime … a dictatorial regime … in my nation. Called Communism, Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, and whatever other named -ism you want to put on it. The reason why it was done was to take away the guns from the People. The right of the People to wear guns. That is a God-given Right. It’s not given by anybody. It’s not given by any group. It’s the same thing as freedom, which is a God-given Right. And no one, absolutely no one, has the authority to take it away. To cease to defend the Second Amendment, and my God-given Right of freedom, will cease only with my death.
Here’s the video of his testimony.
On March 23, my colleague Mark Finkelstein noted how MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry considers the unborn child a “thing” which takes a “lot of money” to “turn into a human,” costing thousands of dollars to care for each year of his/her life. Now it appears that Harris-Perry thinks that, after they’re born, children fundamentally belong to the state.
Narrating a new MSNBC “Lean Forward” spot, the Tulane professor laments that we in America “haven’t had a very collective notion that these are our children.” “[W]e have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to their communities,” Harris-Perry argued.
Parents? Family? Bah! Society will raise these small humans you have incubated. The Government thanks you for your contribution.
Ideas have consequences, and they interact with other ideas. Among those fighting for prominence in our society today are: 1) Private citizens shouldn’t have access to weapons, 2) Marriage isn’t anything in particular except as the state defines, 3) Your children belong to the society, not you or your family, 4) The state will educate these children as it sees fit, 5) Government should be as big as possible, 6) It’s up to the government to save us from ourselves through the banning of sodas that are too large, because the people cannot be trusted….
….except in raising your kids, of course.
It’s not unexpected that those who are most vocal about gun control rely on guns for their own safety.
Piers Morgan, the resident gun control advocate on CNN, protects his own personal property with signs warning that it is guarded by “Armed Response Security Systems,” according to a new investigation by self-described “guerrilla journalist” James O’Keefe.
I watched the trailer for this new video by Project Veritas, and much of it has O’Keefe asking employees of film production companies if they would sign a petition to remove all guns from movies.
O’Keefe also approached other companies, such as Robert DeNiro’s Tribeca Films, and got a few signatures but mostly was rejected.
In this breakdown by the Wall Street Journal [link], you can see the number of bills and new laws being enacted in favor of gun rights.
Though just from the news you’d get the impression that the entire country is leaning towards more gun control.
It also helps to have a working knowledge of the thing you’re trying to ban. [link] But, of course it’s the person who supports gun rights that’s the unreasonable one.
Questioned on what’s to be done with the millions of high-capacity magazines already in circulation, [Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette] asserted that they’d be discarded once they’re used.
“I will tell you these are ammunition — bullets — so the people who have those now they are going to shoot them, and so if you ban — if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available,” she said.
Magazines, however, are reusable as they can be filled with more bullets.