● Cancer patient Natallie Evans lost her final appeal to have embryos fertilized by her former partner implanted in her womb. Now, while it's all very sad that she lost her only chance to have a child of her own flesh and blood (she was rendered infertile by her cancer treatment), the European Court made the right decision by upholding British law, which states that both parents must give their consent for fertilized embryos to be used. Her former partner, Howard Johnston, had changed his mind about using the embryos in the wake of their split-up and the courts rightly decided that this wasn't a right-to-life issue as only the potential for life existed in the fertilized embryos, not life itself. And before we dump on Mr Johnstone for being selfish, consider: Why can a woman change her mind, but not a man? For whatever reason, he no longer desired children, and no-one has the right to say that he should have offspring against his will! Secondly, Ms Evans should now turn her attention to adoption if she wants children so badly. Insisting on children of your own is a selfish act—understandable, perhaps, but intrinsically selfish nonetheless. Time to move on, Ms Evans. There are plenty of children out there in need of a home. Give one a chance if you're that set on motherhood and move on.● Tony Blair has blamed the recent spate of violent murders in the London black community on the black community itself. He also blamed society in general by noting that political correctness demands that people act as if the black community is not responsible for the lion's share of violent crime. "We won't stop this [the killings]," Blair said, "by pretending it isn't young black kids doing it." He also called on the black community to sort out their own issues, such as absentee fathers, rampant truancy, drug abuse and dealing and the violently narcissistic culture of "respect," where any diss, no matter how minor, is cause for a stabbing or shooting. Tony Blair may be a pathetic Prime Minister on too many levels to even consider counting, but when the man's right, he's right. Brave words from Mr. Blair indeed—but perfectly true.
● However—and where Blair is considered there always seems to be a "however" in the equation—as the Daily Express editorialized yesterday: "But isn't he culpable in the betrayal of inner-city teenagers? He has allowed the notion of 'institutional racism' to be used by Left-wingers to prevent schools and the police from nipping bad behaviour in the bud. As a result many youngsters who could have been set straight have been lost to the nihilistic gang culture which disfigures our major cities." Indeed. Mr. Blair, perhaps if you and your government hadn't been so phenomenally and outrageously poor at tackling crime and hadn't crippled the police forces across the country with this very political correctness that you now chide, things would never have become that bad. This latest failure at social liberalism is down to you and your Labour Party, Mr. Blair. No, not entirely. But enough for you to shoulder a lot of the blame yourself.
● And speaking of black people: I would have to agree that what Don Imus recently said about the Rutgers University women's basketball team was really thoughtless if not disgusting. But let's not pretend that Imus is going away. His show is worth too much money and nastiness sells. Imus is too good at what he does—being a prick—and is yet another man getting rich off being offensive. Welcome to the world, folks. Imus will bounce back, however regrettable and unfair that may be ... But, to the young women on that team, I say: COME OFF IT, WILL YOU PLEASE? That crying act at the press conference was too much. "Oh, boo-hoo-hoo, Don Imus called us nasty names. Boo-hoo-hoo, it's so unfair. Don, you mean man, you! Waaa!" Stop it, stop it now! You've gotten all due attention and the whole nation is on your side, so stop hamming it up and acting like your puppies have just died, OK?!
● Finally, Channel 4 recently aired a made-for-television movie entitled The Mark of Cain, in which four young British soldiers get caught up in the abuse of Iraqi civilians. Inflammatory, you say? Channel 4's programmers, whose feet are stuck firmly in the stinking mud of the New Left, would argue that the program was simply a dramatization of real-life events concerning the abuse of citizens in British-controlled Basra. Oh? So why, if the film was simply a mere matter-of-fact dramatization, pray tell, did Channel 4 postpone the film during the British hostage crisis in Iran? Fears that the film, despite its obvious anti-war message, would somehow imperil the negotiation process with the Iranians? Golly gee! So much for the nonchalance with which we were to regard this show!
No comments:
Post a Comment