In the commentary biz it’s either feast or famine. This fine, frigid morning I’ve decided to address – briefly – a few notable news items that have piled up over the weeks behind us. At one time I thought each of them would get an essay of its own, but...well, you know. Especially if you’ve ever tried to write op-ed yourself and struggled to keep up with the news.
1. “Many Worlds”
The “many worlds” hypothesis, sometimes referred to as the “multiverse,” has recently been addressed by physicist and science-fiction great Gregory Benford, in his novel Rewrite. It evoked this comment from Glenn Reynolds:
Theologians have worked on the problem of evil, but I think the many worlds theory either makes it go away entirely, or maybe makes it worse.
The “problem of evil” is one of the most misleading of all “problems” skeptics have attempted to load onto Christians’ shoulders. Here’s my most recent discussion of the subject. But “many worlds” theory not only evades the subject; it also destroys the concept of free will...if, that is, those “other” universes in which you made all the choices you didn’t make in this one, actually exist in the same sense as do you and I.
Either there is one and only one you, or your free will is merely a myth supported by your inability to see beyond the bounds of your particular universe.
2. Silencing President Trump
This article, cited at Ace of Spades HQ, delineates the extent the Left is willing to go to silence its opponents:
This isn't a new idea but it is one that the left is desperate to legitimize in advance of the 2020 election. Today Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan made the case for de-platforming Trump ...I wouldn't suggest, for a moment, that network television and the rest of the mainstream media should ignore what the president says. That would be irresponsible, not to mention impossible.
...
But broadcasting him live and unfiltered -- whether in an Oval Office speech, or an impromptu news conference, or at a campaign rally -- has been a bad idea for quite some time.
Instead, whatever news is produced can be presented in context with facts woven in from the start: Truth first.
Oh, right! We’re supposed to trust the intensely partisan Main Stream Media, every member of which has been caught in one or more fabrications, and which jointly and severally hate Trump’s guts, over the President of the United States. Gee, why didn’t anyone think of that before this? Say, during the reign of Barack Hussein Obama?
I keep thinking “they can’t go any lower”...and then they do. They must take it as a challenge.
3. The “Climate Of Hate”
The proposition that SJWs always project has been borne out many times. Here’s a recent comment on the subject:
In case you missed it, a would-be terrorist was arrested last week for allegedly plotting a massive, multi-faceted attack on the White House. The plotter, 21-year old Hasher Jallel Taheb, hails from Cumming, Ga. His motive appears to have been jihad.Might this story have been a tad bigger if the alleged perpetrator hadn’t been a Muslim and “person of color?” Might it have been bigger yet if the sitting president had been a Democrat?
Of course it would have. It might even have gotten a fraction of the coverage that last October’s letter bomb scare received.
Of course! Muslims, Negroes, and illegal aliens “of color” never commit crimes. That’s a right-wing fantasy! Just like the supposed physical attacks by AntiFa on free-speech demonstrators. And James Hodgkinson was a far-right Nazi.
The article’s major thrust – the responsibility of the Left, especially in the media, for creating a “climate of hate” that evokes this sort of crime – also deserves to be savored. Please read it all.
4. From High-Trust To Low-Trust
Sarah Hoyt alerts us to a recent, rather depressing incident at a Wal-Mart:
An old man fell today in the Walmart in West Knoxville, Tennessee. This is not an extraordinary event. People probably fall in big box stores all over the country every day. It broke my heart and made me angry. I’ll tell you why.
Please read it all now. Then come back here.
God bless and keep them, the Wal-Mart employees who acted did exactly what needed to be done. But the author asks other questions that must be answered:
- “Who in there ever loving right mind would drop an old man with a walker off at a bright and confusing big box store?”
- “What the heck was wrong with the people who didn’t even look down and drove their buggies right by a man laying on the floor?”
- “What the heck is wrong with people?”
Let’s focus on the third of those questions. “People” in this context could be taken to mean “America,” as the individuals specifically mentioned in the article acted responsibly. The unnamed folks who walked by had to have noticed an octogenarian lying on the floor. They only pretended not to notice. Why?
In part, it’s because it’s dangerous to be a Good Samaritan in this era. Such a person risks incurring legal liability for whatever follows his engagement. Lawsuits over such things have bankrupted other, well-meaning persons who did what they thought was morally required by the sight of a sufferer in distress. Add to that the Kitty Genovese Effect. Stir well and serve.
And in part, it’s because the sight of an oldster in such toils reminds us that we and our loved ones are also growing older:
A mere three generations ago, the suggestion that Gramps be "put to sleep" for any reason, much less to free his kids of the bills for his maintenance, would have been greeted with an outrage that transcended horror. Today it's an active topic of discussion. Several states have submitted to the demands of such groups as the Hemlock Society by enacting "assisted suicide" laws. From time to time, public figures have made comments about the "duty" of the old to "get out of the way" of the young. "Ethicist" Peter Singer, a hero to many for his arguments in favor of retroactive abortion, argues that below a certain "quality of life," a creature no longer possesses a right to life, and can be put involuntarily to death for utilitarian reasons -- an assertion that reaches every point on the spectrum of age. The doctors who authored the Groningen Protocol have employed this argument, too.Boomers grant the discussibility of euthanasia for the lowest of all reasons: it would save us money. We'd no longer have to worry about how to foot the bills for Gramps, or for the spouse with terminal multiple sclerosis, or for the child with severe cerebral palsy or Down's Syndrome. Beyond the money, it would save us having to labor over those wretches, or endure their complaints and their lack of gratitude. Away with them! If the State won't take them off our hands, maybe God will! More time and money for us, that's the ticket!
No more need be said.
5. Reviews Desperately Needed!
Experiences, my latest novel, is languishing in the Slough of Despond for a lack of reviews. If you’ve read the book and enjoyed it, I’d greatly appreciate your assistance. Would you please consider leaving a review at Amazon? Reviews help to sell books, and just now that book needs all the sales help it can get. Thanks in advance.
That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. Have a pleasant day. If your day turns out not to be pleasant, keep this in mind: it could be worse: it could be Monday. See you tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment