Thursday, January 20, 2005|
Thank God we have James C. Dobson to protect us from evil. 7:12:11 AM permalink What do you think? [] trackback [] |
Thursday, December 23, 2004|
So apparently a cat was cloned recently for a lady in North Texas who missed her cat of 17 years who had died recently. You can read stories about it here and here. I'm not sure how you feel about people cloning their beloved pets. I for one would never do it. I love my cats (if one more of my co-workers says starts a sentence with "There's only one good kind of a cat. . .", I'm going to rip their testicles off) but I wouldn't want an exact clone. Some day, my cats will die and I'll be terribly, terribly sad. But I would hate to try and replace them. In time, I'll get another cat that I'll love for its own personality and traits. So cloning's not for me. But I don't think you shouldn't be able to do it if you've got the cash. However, it seems that most of the people who object to cloning of pets do so much like the fellow in the first link above:
To which I say, shut the hell up! Mr. Magnus doesn't end up arguing on morality or the reprehensibility of the act. He basically tries to turn his argument on guilt which is patently absurd. Yes, the woman could have provided homes to a great number of strays. But just because someone COULD have done something, it does not logically follow that they SHOULD do that thing. It's a non-sequitur. A similar non-sequitur relating to healthcare was recently pointed out over at ChicagoBoyz. This woman had $50K (to which I say at Christmas time and house buying time and wedding time "Damn, must be nice!") to do with as she pleased. She chose to take HER money and do something that would provide HER happiness. Why is it so difficult for some people to grasp that this is not only perfectly reasonable but also perfectly admirable? Why does Mr. Magnus believe that he knows best when it comes to this woman's money? His rebuttal, and the one in the DMN article linked second, are not really rebuttals and do nothing to add to the debate. Their statements are logically false. It does not follow that because something is good for society that an individual should do that thing. This case of the cloned kitty is no different. |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004|
For all the leftist elites who think those of us in fly-over country are all hicks and rednecks, a story about a small-town in Oklahoma coming to terms with one young man's homosexuality. And if there is a hell, may Fred Phelps burn there for a thousand lifetimes. |
Thursday, August 19, 2004|
If the white people of a white neighborhood formed a white citizens' group to try and "educate" the people of the neighborhood about why it was wrong to buy items from a local black store owner, would that make national news? Would it be ethically and morally wrong? Then why does it seem less evil when it's done in a black community and the victim is Korean? Is this endemic to black communities in general, this small-time xenophobia towards Asians owning successful businesses in the community? Beats me but it would be interesting to find out. 8:02:45 AM permalink What do you think? [] trackback [] |
Wednesday, August 04, 2004|
Missouri overwhelmingly votes to ban gay marriage. While there does seem to be a movement underfoot to allow gay marriage, this result shows that it has yet to gain serious footing in the South and Midwest. Regardless of how you feel about the result, this is how democracy should work, not through the courts but through the people, voting their consciences or their moral beliefs or whatever they use when they vote. It will probably be another generation before gay marriage really has a chance and two or three before it's seen as something resembling normal. No one ever said democracy, or cultural change for that matter, was fast or easy. |
Monday, July 26, 2004|
Is the New York Times a liberal newspaper? Roger Simon examines that question. But the key graf to me is only peripherally related to his topic but directly related to the War on Terror:
Talk about "On Contradiction"! People of the "Zabar's zeitgeist" find it almost constitutionally impossible to acknowledge the other side "did the right thing." These freedoms that the left always cries for in America seem to be strangely missing in their foreign policy. The fact that women have infinitely more freedoms now in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that the people there have the ability to critize their governments when before they did not, that by making particular countries safer necessarily means that the world, and America by relation, is a safer place, these facts seem to be so alien to many on the left side of the aisle and yet these are the ideals that those on the left of the aisle claim to hold most dear. The cognitive dissonance must be crushing. When you bring this up to someone of the "Bush is a liar and Satan who can't talk and should be shot", their typical response is a sputtering, stuttering reply revolving around what the American people were told. But they can't seem to grasp the fact that it's entirely possible that regardless of what the American people were told, the results are at least a net positive and possibly much greater than that if for no other reason than women aren't burned in Afghanistan anymore for showing their face and people aren't being rounded up and killed for no real reason in Iraq. Eventually, America needs to come to the realization that in being the only superpower, we have responsibilities that may require the shedding of our own blood to increase and foster the lofty ideals and rights that we hold dear throughout the world. But those who critize the simplisme of the current Administration seem to want to hold those ideals while concurrently doing everything in their power to avoid spreading the ideals to the greater world. |
Sunday, July 11, 2004|
Street painting is cool. (Via ChicagoBoyz ) 11:53:22 PM permalink What do you think? [] trackback [] |
Last update: 7/29/2005; 10:51:34 PM .
