Category Archives: rant
Maybe it’s just that we live in an age of public social networking, but it seems to me that we are watching the evidence of cultural rot on a massive scale.
What’s at fault? Too many things for me to catalog in a single article to tell the truth, but the symptoms are everywhere, even if we can’t find the source of the disease.
We see it in the media blackout of the Kermit Gosnell case and in the feminist blogs that rushed to defend abortion in the wake of his arrest and trial.
We see it in the tweets of people who think Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is “too cute” to be a bomber and wish that he wouldn’t be found guilty.
The people who feel the need to get on TV and talk about how the Boston Bombers were “nice guys”.
The feeding frenzy of the Main Stream Media when they thought it might be “Right Wing Nuts” who bombed the Marathon, but their complete unwillingness to look at the religion of the bombers now, even when it’s being reported that the elder of the two brothers was a frequent visitor a mosque run by radical Islamists in Russia.
The people like Amanda Palmer who write terrible, trite “poetry” to encourage “empathy” for a man that killed 3 people in cold blood, one of them an 8 year old, and injured hundreds more.
The people who send hate tweets to a pastor who son committed suicide.
The people who tell me I should “just do everyone a favor and f*cking kill [myself]“ while peddling trite “anti-bullying” slogans on their own blogs.
We’re living in a society that’s being overwhelmed by cultural rot. A mentality of “if it didn’t hurt me, it’s not so bad” and “it’s not my fault, racism/homophobia/islamophobia made me do it!”
I know that we have many good people in our society, watching the actions of first responders in Boston and the bravery of the Boston police proves that, but sometimes it seems like we are fighting against a flood of moral relativism and rot that is rising twice as fast as we can place sandbags.
When I interact on social media sites like twitter or tumblr, I see people of my generation and the generations that will follow me into becoming the leaders of this country.
Often I am inspired by genuinely intellectual young people who are intelligent, well-spoken, and share a love of freedom with myself and an understanding of the fact that the style of governance our founding fathers gave us is the key to that freedom, not this false “equality” that liberals want to sell us.
But very often I am brought face to face with an element of our future generation of leaders that depresses me. These are the people who have bought into the idea of “equality of outcome”, “wealth redistribution”, “anything goes moral relativity”, and the idea that everything bad that happens to them and every bad decision that they make, is a product of society “oppressing” them. They want the government to even things out, make sure they succeed, and hand them everything on a shiny silver platter.
I told a friend of mine from high school that there is a very special part of hell reserved for that man. For those of you who are Joss Whedon fans, yes I do mean “The Special Hell”. Paterno may not have been a child molester, but, in my eyes, he wasn’t much better.
In Dante’s Inferno, the lowest level of hell was reserved for for betrayers. Satan, Judas, Brutus, and Cassius were depicted as being some of the main people imprisoned here. Why do I bring this up? Because Paterno was guilty of treachery that is, or should be, on par with any of these. What did he betray? His duty, as an adult, to protect the children of the sports program that Sandusky was involved in. They were under his care and to betray the job of protecting children under your care is one of the most evil things a person can do, in my opinion.
Don’t get me wrong. Mike McQueary is guilty of this treachery just as much, but this post isn’t about McQueary. It’s about the ridiculous notion that we shouldn’t “speak ill of the dead” and the idea that we should say “rest in peace” to the memory of a man who, when knowledge of sexual molestation of children came to him, said (this is satire) “You know what, calling the cops in this situation just seems like overkill. I’ll just tell my boss and hope he does something about.”
A friend of the friend I mentioned earlier said that people “don’t know what they would’ve done in that situation”. Well in that exact situation, if I was McQueary who saw the abuse happening, I would only have a hard time deciding how much to “accidentally” hurt Sandusky as I was pulling him away from the boy. If I were in Paterno’s situation, I might be hard-pressed to decide whether to call the cops first or find Sandusky and kick him in a very sensitive place.
Some might say that Paterno only acted as he did because he didn’t have first hand knowledge of the abuse, he only had a second hand statement from McQueary and he didn’t want to preemptively cause a scandal.
Paterno (and McQueary, who should have made the report himself before talking to his boss) is in a field that is covered by the Pennsylvania Mandated Reporting law.
(a) General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), licensees who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.
Having another member of your staff report sexual child abuse to you, would seem to fall under the “reasonable cause to suspect” part of that, would it not?
And frankly, Pennsylvania state law shouldn’t even enter in to this argument at all. This is a matter of ethics and morality. If you have even the slightest suspicion that child abuse of any kind is occurring, it is your moral duty to report it to the cops, even if it may cause a scandal. It is your moral duty to hound the police and insure that something is being done. It is your moral duty to, if you are in a position to do so, keep the abuser in question away from children until the police have done their job and investigated the situation.
And so Paterno becomes one of those men who make me sincerely wish that I believed in Hell…or reincarnation. At least The Conservative New Ager has hope that Paterno will pay for his actions in his next life.
I think that makes this one of those times that I hope I’m actually wrong about something and that there is an afterlife (or just another life) waiting after this one.
Yeah…I’ve never liked PETA much, but this…this is a new low. This is an ad that PETA is trying, emphasis on trying since no one will actually place the billboard anywhere, to run in Florida.
A planned advertisement from the animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that implies a shark-attack victim deserved his injuries has had the effect of chum in the water for the group’s critics.
The proposed billboard features a great white shark biting into a severed human leg, with the jarring slogan, “PAYBACK IS HELL. GO VEGAN.”
The advertisement was in response to a fisherman who lost a leg in a shark attack while spear fishing off Anna Maria island.
Charles Wickersham, 21, survived the attack, but remains hospitalized with a severe wound on his left thigh.
“With sharks in the news, we thought it would be a good time to bring up the fact that sharks are not actually the most dangerous predators on the planet – we are,” PETA spokeswoman Ashley Byrne told the News.
“Americans alone kill 12 billion fish for food every year.”“We are glad that Mr. Wickersham will be okay,” says Byrne. “We hope that after this painful and horrible experience he and other fishermen will consider the pain that fish feel and we hope they will consider taking up another pastime.”
A man was fishing, for food…which y’know, humans have been doing for thousands of years…and somehow it’s his fault that a shark attacked him and we should feel bad for the shark!? I’m not saying we should blame the shark, the shark was doing what sharks do, but Wickersham was doing what humans do as well. He didn’t deserve to be attacked by a shark, nor should it be seen as some sort of warning towards fishermen or hunters.
Now I’m going to start making some generalizations, let me know if you think I’m wrong about these generalizations in any way whatsoever, but I don’t foresee any issue with them.
Members of PETA believe that animal life is, at the very least, as important as human life and that is why, therefore, animals should not be killed for food or any other reason.
But, I would venture to guess, that most (if not all) members of PETA are also pro-choice.
Now I’m not arguing about whether or not abortion is or is not moral or whether it should or should not be legal. That is not what this blog is about.
What this is about is the fact that PETA logic is severely flawed, because they believe that animals should not be killed, but potential human life is not as important as the life of an animal.
This is further borne out through yet another generalization.
How many members of the protest of the execution of Troy Davis were also members of PETA? I can’t give you an exact number, but I venture to guess that quite a few members of PETA protested his execution.It seems like the sort of thing they would be involved in, tangentially.
So the life of a convicted felon is worth more than the life a potential child, but still less than an animal? Or the same as an animal? or more? Sorry, I’m not a member of PETA and the last time I met one I alienated her by telling her “no thanks, I already eat tasty animals. I don’t need to join an organization about doing so.” so I’m a little iffy about the order of importance that living creatures fall into in this organization.
So for the sake of ease, I’m going to go with this.
Fish > Convicted Felon > Fisherman > Fetus
Can you see an issue with this? I don’t know, maybe it’s just me seeing a slightly illogical bent to this view of the world.
I could understand the PETA’s stance (understand, not agree) if they were consistent, if PETA believed that ALL life on the planet was equally important, but they don’t. I can understand a person’s position, if not agree with it, when they have their priorities straight even when their beliefs aren’t necessarily consistent, but PETA also fails in that respect.
My only question is what part of PETA’s beliefs don’t fall apart under light scrutiny?