Thursday, December 15, 2005

So sad

It's sad, so sad
It's a sad, sad situation.
And it's getting more and more absurd.
It's sad, so sad
Why can't we talk it over?
Oh it seems to me
That sorry seems to be the hardest word.

I happened upon this while scanning Best of the Web Today. As the title says, I find it sad - disturbing even. Read it and weep, as the saying goes. It is, in my opinion, a very thought provoking article. I'll never know if the thoughts it provokes are even remotely anticipated by the author but that never matters.

Odd as it may be I have only two complaints about this piece. First is the title, The New Underground Railroad, which is so over the top in its pretensiousness that it is preposterous. Perhaps even insulting. The other petty complaint I have is that for some reason that is beyond my comprehension either the author or the publisher, or both, were compelled to put in, or fail to remove, the following - stupid! - line:

"This is about somebody else’s body. It’s not President Bush’s body, but it’s not mine, either,” she says.

President Bush has nothing to do with the article. Nothing. But some way, some how, it apparently must have a gratuitous slap at President Bush.

A preposterously pretensious title and a preposterously gratuitous slap at the president. Otherwise it is a dark and disturbing article. I nearly regret providing the link but it seems vaguely important to me.


buddy larsen said...

I read the article, and now if you don't mind i'm off to drink a cup of hemlock, or drop acid, or hell just hit the Jim Beam. I really can't take it--but you gotta look it in the face.

buddy larsen said...

Nothing in the government works on arbitrary calenders, we use 'years' instead of '75% of years' for all other framings, so i think we just go ahead make humans the private property of the mothers for the first *year* of life. Then even if mom births the child, she still has three more months to decide if things are going to work out or not, and if she wants to call lemon-law up to the age of three months post-birth, she can just take the baby into the clinic and have it removed.

Seriously, it's almost as if babies are spontaneous generations, as tho they don't result from a deliberate action--that in all except rape cases--could simply be not done, or done differently--per choice.

Getting all hot making out is not an accident, and is not an excuse for as grave an action as--if not aborting a child, then how about deeply horrifying a huge swath of your countrymen who feel protective of all human life--as per their religious convictions and/or simple moral feelings of right-and-wrong.

Then, in the article, that little ready-to-be-born boy in the sonogram who is floating in bliss feeling warm and in the hands of almighty power, wouldn't have to get the chop.

buddy larsen said...

I didn't have a point, Mark.

buddy larsen said...

Everything hurts on all sides of the issue. It's an issue of lamentation. Lamentation is what 100% of the people should agree on.

buddy larsen said...

i'd like to see if 'marital status' is included, and teen abortions are included. wonder where--HHS ?

buddy larsen said...

There's no hiding from the stats, and the problem for 'born' kids is "where's daddy?"

this is a problem that rode in on the horse of non-judgementalism.

When liberal behaviour enshrined non-judgementalism, it made a sea of misery to replace the judgementalism--which was bad because it was..."mean-spirited" to people who wanted "more freedom".

So now, what, total, half? of all our babies have had someone else's idea of freedom rob them of something that nature designed for them to have: "a daddy".

some 'freedom'.

buddy larsen said...

broadly, i agree. but the fatherless kids i referred to are the ones raised out of wedlock, with no help from dad.