This one demonizes one of the most useful plants on Earth:
And this one demonizes the right of the accused to representation in court:This doesn’t appear to be some sort of spoof:A cotton plant growing at Campbell Elementary School [in Arlington, Virginia] drew criticism online today, but Arlington Public Schools said allegations that staff were going to make kids “pick cotton” was a misunderstanding.“At no time, never, was the school going to have students pick cotton,” said APS spokesman Frank Bellavia.That prompts me to ask the following question: If the staff had said they were going to make only the white students pick cotton, would those same now-outraged people have applauded them?Continuing:Catherine Ashby, the Director of Communications for APS, tells ARLnow that a teacher planted cotton seeds in pots as an experiment to see how they would grow. Social media posts about the experiment from the teacher prompted objections from other educators.“She tweeted about her experiment and what she was growing, and that’s what got other staff members upset about what she was doing,” said Ashby.Social media again. The center of our outrage age.More [emphasis mine]:Community members started talking online about the incident after an email circulated from Campbell Principal Maureen Nesselrode, who called a staff meeting to discuss what to do with the plant. Bellavia said the plant was destroyed after the meeting.So the modern Red Guards aren’t content with just destroying reputations of living people or statues of dead people. Offending plants must be destroyed.
Both are based on the passive-aggressive means of cultural warfare that the modern Left has perfected. "I'll melt if I have to be exposed to anything unsettling!"A dean at Harvard Law School has come under attack by social justice warriors, and finally “relieved of his position” by Harvard University, for offering his skills in the defense of Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The poor little flowers are objecting to a Harvard professor participating in the legal defense of a man accused of sexual crimes.But wait! Isn’t that what defense lawyers do? Isn’t that, in other words, precisely what Harvard Law School is supposed to be teaching its students — the future top lawyers of America — namely that justice in a civil society demands that everyone be entitled to a defense, entitled to have his day in court? Doesn’t the rule of law specifically define the lawyer’s role as representing clients to the best of his abilities, in accordance with the law’s objective procedures, and on the principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? Should Harvey Weinstein (or anyone else) be denied legal representation and the presumption of innocence because the crimes of which he is accused are especially revolting. On the contrary, is it not precisely such a case that tests and proves the nobility of a civil society’s principles of justice?The social justice warriors (read my explanation of that concept here) in both Harvard’s student body and its administration, are demanding that the essential premises of criminal justice in America be suspended in cases that they personally find distasteful or “triggering.” In other words, they are placing their subjective emotional responses above the objective tenets of equality before the law. That is to say, they are thinking and behaving like tyrants.And these are Harvard Law students, the future movers and shakers of America’s legal system, its future star attorneys, its future constitutional interpreters, its future professors of law, its future supreme court justices.
"Conservatives" who shout the latest GDP and employment numbers from the rooftops are throwing up a smokescreen regarding the pervasive rot of our culture, because reversal of said rot would require a level of astuteness, courage and effort that goes way beyond that required for providing people with job opportunities. For fifty-five years, Western civilization has ceded ground to those bent on its destruction, because it has lost sight of the transcendent and the immutable. Everything is now ephemeral. If it's all relative and fleeting, what's there to defend?
You too were a whiny little peckerhead once, weren't you. By now you were supposed to have enough money and stuff to not give much of a shit.
ReplyDeleteHemp might be as useful as cotton throughout history but we put a stop to that shit in America, didn't we? I think that was a Republican thang, saving us from ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI was indeed a whiny little peckerhead once. But once I became a conservative, and later a Christian, I couldn't imagine ever not giving a shit about what is truly important.
ReplyDeleteHemp has nothing to do with the story discussed in this post.
In the sense that hemp, also one of the most useful plants in the world, was demonized by a Republican President half a century ago to extract revenge on "the other(s) in this land, i.e. initiating war vs. his own people (oh the damage done), in defiance of his own investigative commission, derailing even serious scientific research into some claimed beneficial psycho-spiritual aspects of the plant, this post has something(s) in common with cotton and its current demonization by factions bloggie holds in political condemnation.
ReplyDelete