Not even kidding, this is totally where my morality is at right now, philosophically speaking. I'm all, "Peter Singer's dilemma? Meh. I guess the baby can just die."
Not practically speaking, friends, don't worry. I'm just saying, why is our collection of elements more important than any other particular combination? A little existential crisis on the eve of your monday.
Just in case you needed a final push into Charlie-Sheen-like insanity, our beloved Sarah Palin is here to provide. Speaking, it seems, from the deluded authority of "takes one to know one," Palin says that union bosses need to turn down the rhetoric.
That Sarah! She is practically the Miss Manners of Politics, doling out gentility with a side of polite humor. For sure, the first person that springs to my mind when I ask, "Who is the champion of civil discourse in American politics?"
Plus, as Sarah notes, there have even been some death threats involved in the heated debates over the de-unionizing of Wisconsin. And that is a reason to call for toning down rhetoric...unless you're talking about right-wing rhetoric, and an actual shooting was involved. Anybody remember Palin's reaction to we left-wingers calling for a tone-down of rhetoric, then?
It seems to me everything we say is mocked, but if they say it, that's fine. If one of ours took drugs, that's really bad. If one of ours, had affairs, that's really bad, etc. How does this work? How to we get all the mud and they keep washing themselves squeaky clean??
ReplyDelete