Today in our Columnist section, Rebecca Hagelin searches for lessons we can all learn from the somewhat surprising thugery that took place during Katrina hurricane disaster, and finds that target number points right at the social aspects of society, in “Throwing out the thugs”. Here’s a snippet:
So how is that in fewer than 100 years we have digressed to a society where, when disaster strikes, the story is marked by a display of the worst side of human nature rather than the best?
Could it be that in a pop culture where the gangsta style is “hip” and is reflected and perpetuated in everything from violent rap and hip-hop music, to the clothing styles, to the language and gestures used in “normal” communication, to the negative attitudes toward females and children, that the “style” isn’t just a fashion trend but has actually become a way of life for some? In other words, in a culture where many people dress like gangstas, talk like gangstas, and strut like gangstas, should we be shocked and horrified that they start engaging in gangsta crime when given the opportunity?
The newest member of our Columnist team, Jennifer Roback Morse continues from her column of last week. This week it’s “Myths of reproductive freedom: Part II—Repealing the law of cause and effect”. Here’s a snippet from that:
It is startling to realize that the looming battle for the Supreme Court hinges on whether nominees will pledge their support for the utterly irrational demand to suspend the law of cause and effect. For that is what the claim that we have a constitutional right to “reproductive freedom” amounts to. All Americans are entitled to have the cause, namely, unlimited sexual activity, without ever experiencing the effect, namely, a live baby. To see the absurdity of this claim, try out a couple of analogies.
Consider eating, for instance. We can all agree that eating is a good and necessary thing, that everyone is entitled to eat. We might even agree that gourmet eating is one of life’s great pleasures. We would not conclude that everyone has a constitutional right to eat as much as they want, without ever getting heart disease, high blood pressure or other natural consequences of overeating. We could not coherently claim that every person has a constitutional right to eat without getting fat, and call it “gastronomical freedom.” (Although, considering the number of overweight people waddling around America, maybe people do think they have such an entitlement.)
Paul Jackson may just be Dead Right in his column called “Dead Right”. “Knocking off a few leaders would save us world of grief,” he says. Here’s a snippet:
President Bill Clinton took time out in 1995 from eyeing pretty women to sign Presidential Decision Directive 39 authorizing the “taking out” of individuals who threatened the U.S.
Quite rightly, too.
Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan all signed executive orders banning political assassinations.
But Clinton had finally been aroused from his favourite hobby by the rise of Islamic terrorism—though not nearly enough to stop the assault on the battleship USS Cole in 2000—and wasn’t so squeamish about getting “them” before they got “us.”
Three days after 9/11, the U.S. Congress—even the hypocritical members of the fawning Lib-Left—awoke from slumber and authorized President George W. Bush to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against all involved in the attack.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
- Hey Joel, what is “progressive?” - Friday August 2, 2024 at 11:32 am
