Uncommon Commentary #489: A Right to Riot?

If in no other respect, 2015 has been a good year for persons who seek to abuse the principle of freedom of speech (or, as it is sometimes stated, “expression”; see below).  In April, Baltimore Mayoress Stephanie Rawlings-Blake made the following remarkable remark: “I worked with the police and I instructed them to do everything that they could to ensure that the protesters could exercise their right to free speech.  It is a very delicate balancing act because while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.” (“Rawlings-Blake”—I don’t know the reason for the two surnames; perhaps she considers herself to be too important to have just one—has subsequently asserted that she didn’t mean what she might have seemed to be saying, and that her words were taken out of context, but a senior law-enforcement source confirmed that the hyphenated official gave an order for police to desist from performing their duty to protect the law-abiding as riots, arson, and looting erupted.) And Oklahoma City has given Satanist Adam Daniels a permit to, on this Christmas Eve, pour stage blood, treated with sulfur powder and ash, over a statue of the Virgin Mary that stands before St. Joseph Old Cathedral.
Courts have ruled that expression can, at least in some cases, be considered an equivalent of speech; if someone wanted to, for example, create a painting with a political message (such as, in my judgment, the depiction of the burning of a flag [v.i.]), it would be his prerogative to do so.  A painting, however, is a product of creative rather than destructive expression; positing a constitutional or human right to lay waste to a neighborhood, or to commit public desecration (presumably on private property), or to put a torch to a flag, is like arguing that one has the right to slash a painting by someone else.
Lastly: If violating someone else’s rights indeed is subsumed under free speech, I propose that Christians in Oklahoma City pour stage blood, treated with sulfur powder and ash, over Adam Daniels!

Uncommon Commentary #488: Don’t Monkey Around with Human Nature

I recently learned of a scientific study in which captive vervet monkeys were allowed to play with toys of their own choice; according to the television program that was the source of this information, it was found that “Just like human children, male vervet monkeys prefer toy cars and balls, while females prefer dolls and cooking-pots.  Most scientists believe that male primates [v.i.] are genetically programmed to play in a way that helps them to develop hunting-and-gathering skills; females are more likely to choose toys that teach them about child care.”  Since we of the species Homo sapiens are also primates, do not the results of this experiment further discredit those brownskirts (see the list of domanisms, below) who deny that there are psychological differences between men and women?

Uncommon Commentary #487: Never Call Out to a Female Sibling “It’s I, Sis!”

The ISIS claimed responsibility for the terrorist atrocity in Paris, and it has been confirmed that Tashfeen Malik, of San-Bernardino-attack infamy, pledged loyalty to that same group.  It’s been said that “What happens in France happens here 10 years later” (see UC#59), but, sometimes, we don’t have to wait even that long.

Uncommon Commentary #486: The Next President Obombast? (God Forbid!)

When a CBS interviewer told Dr. Ben Carson that advocates of legal fœticide accuse pro-lifers of instigating the tragedy in Colorado Springs, the reputedly pro-life presidential candidate made a reply worthy of the current occupant of the Oval Office (who, in 2009, called on both sides of the induced-abortion debate to “stop demonizing” each other), saying that “There is no question that, you know, hateful rhetoric, no matter which side it comes from–Right or Left–, is something that is detrimental to our society” and that there is “No question the hateful rhetoric exacerbates the situation”.  I’ve no idea what “hateful rhetoric” it is that Dr. Carson seems to attribute to the “Right”; the only hateful rhetoric that I’ve ever heard on this issue has come from the very side which has been laying responsibility for this crime at the feet of persons who oppose the institutionalized murder committed by the likes of Planned Parenthood. (Indeed, making such an accusation is itself “hateful rhetoric”—Is it not?)

Uncommon Commentary #485: A Fallen Star-Advertiser

According to a 29 November article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser (the author of which is obviously biased against the pro-life cause): “Violence against doctors or clinics [sic] providing abortion services [Inducing abortion is a “service”?—Doman] has claimed the lives of at least 11 people [sic] in the United States [of America, presumably] since 1993….  The most recent deaths came … in Colorado Springs, Colo.”  Even if the actions in Colorado Springs of shooter Robert Lewis Dear actually qualify as anti-fœticide—he reportedly said something of “baby body parts”, but it ought to be noted that opposing the sale of whole or incomplete cadavers is not the same as opposing the procedures that yielded those cadavers, and that those who have known Dear best say that he never mentioned abortion—, and if any deaths resulted from such violence prior to the past 22 years, we can reasonably assume that the all-time number of those deaths is lower than the total tally of victims of fœticide, which is approaching 60 million.