Bridezilla

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

 

It’s Friday. Time for all the silly news we shouldn’t waste our time caring about, but should waste our time laughing/mocking/shaking our heads at.

Some people shoot bears. I don’t agree with it, but intellectually I recognize it’s not substantially different ethically from sitting down to a plate of bacon. Heck, it’s probably better, given the conditions some pigs are kept in.

And you’d have to be a cold-hearted SOB to not want a desperately ill 11-year old girl to fulfill her life’s dream.

Still..am I the only one who finds this story just, I dunno, wrong?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213159/Its-like-dream-come-true-11-year-old-girl-needs-heart-liver-transplant-contain-joy-shooting-335-pound-bear-hunting-trip.html

Political correctness is sickening, but so is bigotry. So while I acknowledge the right of the Boys Scouts of America to discriminate based on sexual orientation, that doesn’t make it right. Since when does Scouting stand for making an accomplished, hard-working young man feel like crap about his identity? http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/04/14224160-almost-eagle-scout-denied-award-because-he-is-gay?lite

You know your best friend shouldn’t be, when: http://gawker.com/5948725/reasons-why-you-cannot-be-a-bridesmaid

This one is kind of interesting: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55012284-78/tanner-court-cecil-sovereign.html.csp

I’m fascinated by the sovereign citizen or ‘freemen’ movement for a couple of reasons. The first is the self-destructive obstinacy of those embracing and living the philosophy, i.e. “I’m gonna do this even though there is no chance it will possibly work and will result in personal disaster for me,” and the second is the refusal of mainstream media, authorities and probably most of the public to recognize that the idea of a person being ‘sovereign’ is not in and of itself kooky. There are all kinds of practical reasons why nations can and do force their citizens to abide by group-conceived rules, but that is a different equation from determining moral authority.

A person who continues to live in mainstream society but refuses to abide by mainstream society’s rules is being largely disingenuous. But a person who took it upon themselves to leave all populated parts of the planet and live off the land would have some basis for arguing s/he’s ‘sovereign’.

The imposition of nation-state authority over people, while very sensible, has no moral authority in and of itself. In principle, a being should have the right to remove themselves from that authority…probably (I haven’t thought it through enough to make an absolute declaration!).

Some times the media just needs to fill the space: http://www.buzzfeed.com/babymantis/15-reasons-it-must-have-been-a-slow-news-day-1opu

 And anybody who’s anybody already knows about this: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/google-warns-new-state-sponsored-cyberattack-targets/ (Yeah, I didn’t know about it. I clearly need to be more controversial in these blog posts – oh, and get a Gmail account).

Finally, a question: What is ‘Gangnam’?

 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments