Grandiosity Masquerading as Intelligent Commentary

President Bush has singlehandedly ended all scientific progress in the United States. Or at least you’d think so to read USA Today‘s editorial from last week.

Not only did he halt scientific progress–

Unlike some presidential vetoes, Bush’s would be more than symbolic. Because the House isn’t expected to muster the two-thirds vote needed to override, it would kill the bill. The veto would impede medical progress at potentially enormous human cost, allow abortion politics to trump science and go against the wishes of most Americans.

[in other words, USA Today is satisfied only with meaningless vetoes, unless they go their way] –the results of embryonic stem-cell research will nonetheless be happily achieved in 25 years: “A quarter-century from now, when the benefits of embryonic stem cell research are being realized, Americans are likely to shake their heads in astonishment at this week’s events in Washington.”

Despite the fact that USA Today is now able to see the future with absolute clarity, the editors also make unfounded rhetorical moves designed to cast all those who oppose the needless abuse of human life as anti-science neanderthals. Besides, “These microscopic clusters of cells aren’t life as most people think of it. They have the potential to become human only if they are successfully implanted in a woman’s uterus.” My question is, what do they have the potential to become otherwise? Cows? Before painting others as anti-scientific progress, maybe the USAT editors should get their biological facts straight: no matter whether a fertilized egg is implanted in a woman’s uterus, it still has the “potential” to become only a human being. Of course, this is dismissed by the glib statement that they aren’t life “as most people think of it,” meaning, as “we the editors think of it.” I’m sure the medical community has a different take on it.

“Anti-progress” is a common point of attack, but let’s think about that one. Progress is only important relative to the goal at which one aims. If the goal is libertine scientific experimentation by means of which some utilitarian goal might be reached, progress cannot be good in any objective sense. On the other hand, cutting off the beginnings of further destructive experimentation on human lives deemed expendable for the sake of science is indeed progress toward a good end, namely, that each life is valued for the end to which God has ordained it. To suggest that scientific “progress” undefined is a good to be pursued at any cost is ridiculous on the face of it. It all depends on which end and whose progress.


Last Comic Making an Unintentional Cultural Comment

So I was watching Last Comic Standing last night and (in my opinion, the funniest guy) Chris Porter, made a profound but likely unintentional comment on the state of our culture. He was making a joke about the birth control patch, and how, if they were for guys, they would have them plastered on their forehead (“four or five of them; look ladies, backup”) so that women would know they were ready for uninhibited sex–sex uninhibited by the fear of children, that is.

He went on to say that for a guy to discover a birth control patch on a woman was like getting a toy for Christmas with batteries included. “You can play with her right out of the box!” To that, women could be heard cheering. Now, I don’t know about you, but that comment and the response to it strikes me as symptomatic of everything that is wrong with our materialistic culture of death. When women no longer retain the capacity to recognize that they are being treated as objects and toys to be played with, the birds of radical feminism (David, is that qualifier okay for you? ha!) have come home to roost. Far from being funny, the joke was a sad commentary on the state in which we find ourselves.

He went on to tell a very funny joke about caskets at Costco (“Costkets”), but the first one is the one that rang unfortunately true.


MSNBC=Missin’ Brain Cells

See if you can spot the number of hilarities in this piece of “news.”

[Hints: “heterosexual” vs. “gay”; “turnabout,” as if the names of homosexuals had been published on a website–can you even imagine the fallout if such a thing did happen?; the list was published to “encourage discussion”]

I would be glad to be called a “breeder;” it only highlights the moral deficiency of homosexual sex.

On a similar note, my home state’s supreme court upheld the ban on same-sex “marriage.” Good for them. Hey, if New York and Washington can do it, anyone can! On the other hand, the illegitimate gov. tried to find a way around the ruling. Amazingly, the “governor” believes that marriage is a religious issue and not a government issue! “State government provided us with certain rights and responsibilities, but the state did not marry us.”

In fact, the state does recognize your marriage (call it “marrying you” if you want) and regardless of what you do in church, without that recognition, your marriage is legally invalid. Seriously! How did this woman get into office again? Oh yeah, now I remember. What’s more, if it’s not a government issue, why are these people so worked up?