COGITATIONS

Contributor Anotmo furnishes us with some Random Ruminations:

1. ‘Moral Relativity’ is the ideology whereby Liberals presume to occupy the moral high ground by having declared that there is no such thing.

2. Liberals hold us individually responsible for nothing but collectively to blame for everything.
   

3. Contrary to what MSM journalists seem to believe, ‘Freedom of the Press’ is not their very own right as journalists; not anymore than ‘Freedom of Religion’ is an exclusive right of churches. Both belong to me. What the media has is the privilege and responsibility to be the free press to which I have a right. While they are quite taken with the former, they are grossly negligent regarding the latter.
   
4. Liberals believe that evolution alone accounts for the enormous diversity of all life forms, from seaweed to seagulls, but can not imagine how anything except societal stereotyping can account for men consistently scoring better in mathematics and science, while women consistently score better in reading and verbal skills.
5. Re: the above. Liberals need to learn how to discern the difference between ‘equal’ and ‘identical’.
   


6. The MSM consistently makes the case for moral equivalence between Islamic terrorists and the U.S, yet they readily show pictures of our ‘moral outrages’ at Abu Grab and Gitmo on the basis of ‘the peoples right to know’ while refusing to subject us to pictures of the Islamic terrorists ‘equivalent moral outrages’ such as people jumping from the Twin Towers, the collapsing of those towers and Islamist terrorists sawing off the heads of kidnapped civilians with short knifes, proclaiming them too awful for public consumption.
   
7. Liberals are adamant that The Constitution of the United States of America is a ‘living document’ so far beyond its' built-in amendment process, that it must be constantly reinterpreted in order to keep pace with the rapidly changing times; but they do not seem to believe the same of the Geneva Convention or, in particular, Common Article 3, the wording of which is so vague that it begs interpretation.
   
8. Unless, apparently, it is interpreted by our SCOTUS to mean what the Liberals would like it to mean which, as I understand that ruling, means there was never any reason for Common Article 3 in the first place, since everybody gets the same protections and considerations as the Geneva Convention granted specifically to only uniformed combatants of national armed forces.