Readers will have gathered that I am on Facebook. This sometimes presents me with an embarrassment of riches for blogging, yet it's an odd effect that actually I blog less. That's partly explicable by the fact that I do spend some time actually on Facebook, reading my friends' links and making pithy comments and "likes" and what-not, all of which takes time.
It's also a function of the embarrassment of (sad) riches itself. I say to myself, "I should blog about that...and that...and that..." and since there isn't time to write something thoughtful about all of them, I end up writing about none of them. This is unfortunate. So, rather than "saving up" stories for possible later, longer treatment, and to promote them just in case some of you haven't heard about all of them, herewith a link roundup with a sentence or two about each. This is a hodge-podge to end all hodge-podges. It also occurs to me that there is nothing to stop me or any of my esteemed colleagues from writing more about any of the stories later. Comments can be on any of the stories. In no particular order...
More on the zero-sum game: A Christian florist is going to be sued doubly (once by Washington State and once by the ACLU) for refusing to supply flowers for a homosexual "wedding" in Washington. Shades of the Elaine Hugonin case. (She was the wedding photographer in New Mexico similarly fined.) In the threatened civil suit, the ACLU is attempting some pretty blatant extortion, demanding that she write an apology to the two men, promise to supply flowers for homosexual "weddings" in the future, and donate money (!) to a homosexual youth organization. Tell me again, how is homosexual "marriage" all about freedom?
In England, an undercover newswoman discovered that a sharia "court" is advising women to put up with being physically abused, not to call the police (unless the beating was really severe), and to blame themselves for what is happening to them. But anti-sharia laws, of course, are just fear-mongering and bigotry, right?
In Australia, an appeal was allowed for a rape conviction (and yes, this was forcible rape) on the grounds that the rapist, being a Muslim, didn't understand the importance of sexual consent. He was sentenced to jail, but the point is that the appeal was allowed because he was a Muslim and because of odious Muslim views concerning women, sex, and rape, which were (incredibly) considered mitigating.
As I'm sure you're all aware, the horrific facts about the trial of baby-killer Kermit Gosnell are being deep-sixed by the national mainstream media. Many comparisons have been made to other cases which were national news for months on end. Why not this one? I guess we scarcely need to ask. (No link necessary.)
The leftists in our own U.S. Senate have blocked a resolution to honor the late, great Maggie Thatcher, who passed away the other day. Stay classy, Democrats. And stay smart about history, too. I wish I could say more about Maggie, but here are just a couple of her quotations:
Socialists cry “Power to the people”, and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.
Communist regimes were not some unfortunate aberration, some historical deviation from a socialist ideal. They were the ultimate expression, unconstrained by democratic and electoral pressures, of what socialism is all about. … In short, the state [is] everything and the individual nothing.
And, last but not least, Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC thinks kids belong to the collective. I find her "reasoning" interesting: We don't want to insist that children are the responsibility of their parents, because we want to demand more public funding for public schools. Because we don't want to put the responsibility for children on their parents, because we want to blame "society" for not spending enough money on public education if children are not turning out the way we want them to, we need to take the view that parental rights mean nothing. Thus the move, seamlessly and immediately, from an entitlement mindset to a loss of freedom. If you want the collective to bear the responsibility for whether your children are well-educated, you are expected to think of your children as the property of the collective. What's really frightening is that a lot of people will welcome that reasoning, because a) they want to demand more funding for public education (as though throwing more money at it has ever been helpful) and b) they like the idea of blaming other people for the way their children turn out and whether they are educated or not. Privilege implies responsibility, folks. If you want parental rights, you need to take parental responsibility.