How goes the world this day (21 March 2009)?

As we wake up and go off and face our day, it is beneficial to consider the state of the world. Three stories from Fox News show us that the world continues to be at a tilt toward craziness and that people should always be on guard for the encroaching debauchery and moral ambivalence.

1. Fox News reports that "The parents of a seriously ill baby in Britain have said they are "deeply distressed" by a legal ruling which will allow their "only and beloved son" to die." Some quick background, these parents (unnamed in the story) have a son that has suffered brain damage and "major respiratory failue". The British appeals court have upheld a Court Ruling giving permission for the attending doctors to allow this baby to die. The doctors felt that the boy's life was "intolerable and that his disability is such that his life has little purpose" (source was from the Times Online website). So we have Courts decided (with doctors) when a child should die over the objections of the parents. I wait for the backlash from the Abortion Rights crowd as I thought the Government and Judiciary was supposed to stay out of "personal decisions" such as this. Sure, this happened in Britain but why should we think it can't happen here?
   

   
    

2. Second story – also from Fox News with the title "Alaska and Florida Consider Bans on Bestiality". Uhh, considering? I guess what is driven adopting the ban is that "a 26-year-old registered sex offender was accused of molesting a local family's pet dog". This apparently "scared" the local Alaskan community as opposed to having a registered sex offender in the town. I can't wait to hear the arguments against the ban. The Fox News story also cites a number of cases that have caused injury or death to the animal (apparently Florida has a rash of sexual assaults against goats). I guess I am wondering why the hell we need a law against this. Isn't this one of those things that folks are born knowing (thou shalt not have sex with animals)? Sort of like the law banning texting while driving. So sure – let's pass a law banning Bestiality but if we need to pass this, how about a law requiring welfare recipients to work (or attend school and maintain at least a "B") or a law that says any illegal immigrant caught by law enforcement is sent back to their country of origin. These also seem like slam dunks. I wonder where Britain stands on Bestiality?
   

   
    

3. Final story, from Bucharest, Romania, courtesy of Fox News "Romania Eyes Legalizing Consensual Incest, Wouldn't Be First Country in Europe". Romania follows France, Spain and Portugal in potentially not prosecuting consenting adults for incest. One person that supported this legal move was quoted in the story as saying "If brothers and sisters want to have fun, why should they be imprisoned? It is nobody's business what I do in my bedroom,".
   

   
    

A quick survey of the state of our world today, 21 March 2009 as this civilization teeters at the brink of abject corruption because we lack to stones to tell a segment of the population "You are wrong". What a Brave New World we are building.

Outspoken Roman

What is Deepak Chopra talking about?

Over at Yahoo in the opinion section, I made the mistake of reading Deepak Chopra's post that ran on the Huffington Post. Note I did not want to admit to reading the Huffington Post but I digress. Chopra decides to comment on the current flap involving Rush Limbaugh and President Obama. He starts off the post with this:

"When Michael Steele, the hapless chairman of the Republican Party, lost his bearings and called Rush Limbaugh's style ugly and incendiary, everyone knew it was the truth. But it was a perfect example of an inconvenient truth."

Everyone knew it was the truth? Did anyone get Newt Gingrich's opinion on this or Sean Hannity? By the way Deepak, I don't find Rush's style ugly so who is this everyone you are referring to? I guess they are the people that he associates with on a daily basis that don't involve any 'right-wingers'. Chopra continues his article making the point that Limbaugh is actually anti-moralistic as he is fueled by what makes him "pissed off" rather than being guided by any principles. Anyone who listens to Rush knows that is not the case. Rush has broken with the Republican party many times and is actually guided by core conservative principles that I would guess Deepak and his circle of friends find antiquated and odd.

Chopra notes:

"Under ordinary morality, the wretched plight of illegal immigrants, for example, must be considered along with the fact that they are breaking the law. Being poor, illiterate, and desperate, their human condition makes them more sympathetic than ruthless lawbreakers would be. But under anti-morality, if you hate immigrants because they are foreigners who don't look American enough, the argument is over."

Note what he has done in this paragraph. He starts talking about illegal immigrants and winds up knocking Limbaugh and his listeners for hating immigrants because they are foreigners and don't look American enough". Is this guy an idiot? The debate about illegal immigration was not without considering the immigrants plight but it was a discussion (at least on the radio shows that I listen to) about the rule of law, the ability of the United States to handle the influx of immigrants, the effect on the national culture and not the least of all, national security. I never heard someone rail against people for the way they looked but rather for the impact illegal immigrants posed to many facets of our country. What Chopra quickly does is instead try and tar and feather Limbaugh and crew as racists. Chopra believes, I guess, that there are no respectful arguments against anything but full amnesty for the 12, 15 or 20 million illegals regardless of the impact to our country. I guess concern for their plight outweighs everything else in Chopra's mind.

Chopra winds up his screed noting that Limbaugh doesn't feel the need to "understand…or try and accommodate their views" where the "they"could be feminists, gays, Muslins, etc. I guess we should follow Deepak's example as he truly tries to understand the conservative mind and accommodates Limbaugh's perspective. What?? You mean he doesn't practice what he preaches and instead of understanding and accommodating other people's views he just passes judgment on them? Sounds like he may be closer to Rush than he thinks. But don't worry everyone knows the truth about Deepak Chopra and what passes for his learned opinion these days.

OSROMAN

Using MS word to post to the blog

Wow – yes it has been awhile and appreciate the emails and comments since I have been gone. No, I have not been taken away by outraged socialists that can't stand an independent mind in their midst (the midst or should that be mist? – of liberal Massachusetts). Rather I have been recuperating since the November eleection and watching the most extreme power grab by a political party I have ever seen. But before I get there, first it is good to be back and am looking forward to waging into the fray again.

Hey it works - nice.

OS