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.
Regardless of your political/religious leanings, this is vile:
Or it should be, but leftists seem to see this type of personal attack as justified. Ignore the intolerance and hatred, shutting up the other side is all that matters, I suppose.
Although this story is primarily political in nature (and my point here isn’t to endorse Santorum or anyone else) the reason Santorum is being attacked is because of his view on same-sex marriage. If this is the pattern for how dissenting views on the subject are treated (ignoring the fact that same sex marriage is the dissenting view) welcome to public discourse in the 21st century.
The spirit of Nero and Diocletian are alive and well. Only instead of lions and fire we have the internet.
Also, I may do all my searching through Bing now.
The Occupy movement seems to be a catch-all for anyone with a grievance.
This past week Dave Ramsey spent three hours taking calls from OWS supporters to find out what they were upset about. (You can download all three hours of it here.) I don’t remember any two callers being upset over the same things. With no specific demands, leadership, or course of action, this isn’t surprising.
Where I live there was a small attempt to occupy downtown which lasted two non-consecutive afternoons. I spent a little time at their website and read a few blog posts by people who were attending. One of the themes (or memes) that’s emerged in the last week is the anger over police “brutality.”
Except, in their eyes all police are brutal.
Does police brutality happen? Of course. Are the police more corrupt than not? No. I can say that because I live in America with my eyes open.
In an attempt to self-govern, Occupy Boston has sunk to the hellish depths of suggesting that rape victims not notify police. Instead they should notify the “security committee” where the offender will be directed to resources that will help him stop this anti-social behavior.
The concept of justice seems to be lost somewhere just outside of Boston.
I read an article today that was posted on Facebook that gave “Seven Snappy Comebacks for Those Lame Anti-“Occupy” Talking Points.” In an age when public debate is primarily held on our rear bumpers, this doesn’t surprise me.
If I went to a church and the pastor stood up on Sunday and said “Here are seven snappy ways to come back at people who object to Christianity!” I would think he either needs to get out of his study and interact with people or he really doesn’t understand Christianity. I don’t think politics are all that different in this regard.
Also, I hate the word “snappy.”
The article begins:
Lame, pat, pre-packaged putdowns of Occupy Wall Street: We all deal with ‘em, whether we’re arguing with a neighbor, appearing on Fox, or answering the jeers of relatives who’ve just received a chain email that “really puts the protesters in their place.”
Here are a few easy comebacks for your next argument.
Translation: Look how stupid those people are using their lame, pat, pre-packaged, putdowns. Here are some lame, pat, pre-packaged putdowns you can use.
By the way, if what is meant by “argument” is a “quarrel” then by all means, soundbite and quip away until you out-perform your opponent. But if what you mean is “rational discourse” then let’s stop reducing everything to “snappy” talking points.
Man, I hate that word.
Anyway, here are a couple of the seven “comebacks.”
3.They say “But it’s hypocritical to buy corporate products and then protest corporations!” You say “You sound like a Communist.”
Sorry, but I have to quote more on this one because their “snappy comeback” unfortunately has to be elaborated on. Thus making it ineffective as a “snappy” (gah!) comeback.
That’s right – like a Communist. I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe as protests very much like these were overthrowing the Soviet empire. You know what the old-timers in those countries said back then? They said “These people are protesting the State, but they’re wearing clothes made at state-run factories and waving signs made with state resources! What hypocrites!”
(Well, they said it in Hungarian, or Czech, or Polish. But the meaning was the same.)
Tell your debate opponents they sound just like old Commies as they defend the uncompetitive, inflexible, and totalitarian system the corporations now run. Don’t blame the demonstrators. They can’t operate within the new system until we’ve reformed the old one.
That’s why they’re protesting.
This point is an insult to those who opposed Soviet Communism. So our system is uncompetitive? Maybe it is competetive and we’ve bred a generation unwilling to compete. Inflexible? In what regard is it inflexible? There are some things I like being inflexible…like the foundation of my house. Totalitarian?
The 20 million men, women, and children murdered by Stalin are asking you to stop talking now.
7. They say “Ha ha! Look at that bearded guy in the sandals!” You say “Hmmm … A bearded guy in sandals protesting the moneylenders. Where have we seen that before?”
It’s fascinating how often Jesus shows up in these conversations. It’s a respect for a Jesus based on the selective use of history.
I just need to point out that Jesus didn’t protest moneylenders to reform an oppressive government (though the Jews had been subjugated to Rome’s rule.) He made a whip and drove them out of the temple. So, sure…let’s do like he did. Put on sandals, grow beards, and become completely consumed by our zeal for God’s holiness.
I would spend more time elaborating on the other points, but I’m self-employed. And now I have to go compete for some money to buy food.