Shame Shame Shame, Shame of Fools....

[captainsblog]

There's so much noise in America today that I'm just plainly ashamed of.

I started hearing about it during my late-night insomnia of not quite a night ago, as I read post after post condemning CNN for defending the rape crew that attacked a young woman in Steubenville, Ohio while she was unconscious. But they're football players, so apparently it's okay. We should feel sorry for them, because their reputations, and their permanent status as sex offenders, will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

That was the angle that two CNN correspondents- both female- played up over the weekend. By late today, it had gotten even sicker, as word came out that this so-called "Clinton News Network," along with the predictable FOXSucker news channel, but even the normally progressive MSNBC, had all aired the name of the underage rape victim during their coverage of the trial, verdict and sentencing. Given the tons of "she deserved it" comments- never mind from neanderthal internet commenters, from on-air network correspondents- such naming is only going to lead to more shaming and, I pray, nothing worse for the victim than the rape crew will "endure" in their couple of years in juvie.

----

At least there was a semblance of hope over the weekend, occasion of the annual CPAC Republican meet-and-greet, that they might be moving a bit up the evolutionary scale on at least an important social issue: GOP Senator Rob Portman came out over to the side of tolerance upon learning that his own son was gay. Others pointed to the generational shift toward acceptance of same-sex marriage as an expression of personal freedom and liberty. Could the elephant finally be moving toward the center of the room?

Hellz no.

By the time America's most influential drug addict got on the air at noon today, it was clear that he wasn't backing down, not one little bit. And what these crumb-crunching millennials considered a matter of "freedom" was, for him, something completely different:

The group to demonize, of course, is the people who are opposed to gay marriage -- and to give young people the sense of being part of some re-creation of the civil rights era, to give young people the illusory the idea that they are part of some big movement that is championing freedom and love and all of these wonderful, horizon-expanding things that the Republican Party doesn't want you to do. "They don't want you to do that. They don't want you to do this. They don't want you to have fun over there and no fun over here. But we the Democrats are here to liberate you!"

...

Freedom without virtue isn't freedom.  It will eventually destroy a society.  Freedom without morality. Freedom without proper constraints and restraints. Freedom without an accompanying sense of responsibility. Freedom without a spine or a spinal cord of morality.  We're not talking freedom.  But in today's modern vernacular, we are.  To young people today, that's exactly what freedom is.

Freedom is hedonism.  Freedom is your sybaritic pursuits.  You do whatever you want, and as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, there's nothing wrong with it.  And it's the "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else," that's where the trouble begins.  Because is there great harm to a society when an age-old, I mean, as old as humanity itself custom is corrupted?  Any custom, any tradition that has demonstrated it's usefulness, its primacy over hundreds of thousands of years, is a freedom that would corrupt that, actually good?  Is it virtuous?  It isn't.

Now just a darn minute there, Rusty. "Hundreds of thousands of years?" That's heresy! Everybody knows the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old, tops, and humans have been on it only since Day Six of Year One.  But even getting past that- to you, fighting for the right to a committed long-term relationship, solely on account of one's genetic makeup, is to be discounted as nothing other than "fun," or "hedonism."  Even though YOUR idea of a "committed long-term relationship" is something you've revised at least four times in your short, anal-zitted life- about as often as you changed doctors to have your maid score you your Oxys.

Spare me. The only reason you oppose same-sex marriage (you, who had Elton John sing at your most recent wedding) is because Obama is now for it. And you couldn't stand to agree with him on anything up to and including the time of day....

which, thank God, will soon be passing you by, even among a growing number of your Dittoheaded followers.

Comments

[bluevicksen11.livejournal.com]

While I agree that any long-term committed relationship shouldn't just be discounted as "fun", it is good of him to be honest about the fact that the republicans are the anti-fun party.

Also I don't understand the fear of the "as long as it doesn't harm anybody else" mindset. Setting aside the fact that the societal harms he postulates are imagined (baseless and without evidence at best), when is it ever in the interest of freedom to restrict something that does no actual harm? I'm guessing only when it ruins the illusions of those who get off on being so self-righteous.

[tilia-tomentosa.livejournal.com]

http://gawker.com/5991175/this-two+year+old-onion-story-perfectly-predicted-cnns-shocking-steubenville-rape-trial-coverage

[liddle-oldman.livejournal.com]

I believe the word "fatuous" was created especially for Lush.

Besides, Biblical marriage, as everyone knows, is one man and as many women as he can afford to buy. Plus, some concubines. I think the Morals Police ought to go and have a chat with this unbeliever.

[tilia-tomentosa.livejournal.com]

I think you may be interested in this entry:
"Can we knock it off with the passive voice? Their lives were not ruined, they ruined their lives."
http://siderea.livejournal.com/1012365.html