Yah, know. Sometimes I read stuff that just makes me crazy. As i have stated over and over on these pages, I...am...not...a...FEMINIST...I...am...a...HUMANIST! And here is why. Stuff like this. Waaah, waaah, waaaah, waaaah!
This is a serious quote for poor Emily Ratajkowski, actress, model, frankly I don't care...:
Here's the deal. If you want to be taken seriously and not viewed as simply a set of big boobs and a sex object, don't keep taking your top off and displaying them! It's that simple. That is just stupid. But if you want to do that, don't claim sexism, misogyny or any other -ism, or "waaah, people don't like me 'cause I too pretty and have big boobs!"...seriously. Ancient Greek women understood this thousands of years ago. If you want to control men, withhold the one thing they really value...naked women. ["Lysistrata" written in 411 BCE by Aristophanes...a man]
Now, all the men reading this, skip this next part...it's in brackets and italicized, so it's you probably anyway. I have put a magic woman force field around it that we developed in our super-secret meetings called "Ladies Rooms" in restaurants and other public place around the globe, so you can't anyway (why do you think we go in pairs?):
[FOR WOMEN ONLY/MEN NOT ALLOWED TO READ THIS PART: Just between us girls, men are simple. They LIKE seeing naked women 'cause well, men are simple. It is just biology and hardwired in their little reptilian brains. You are stupid if you think otherwise. If you want to be known for something other than your naked body, keep your naked body covered! Ironically, men will notice other things about you that they might like just as much if you do. If you want to be treated as equals, keep your clothes on and think with with our brains. Signed, Your Grandmother]
Now that we have settled that, on to something really serious...involuntary euthanasia.
Just read this and we can discuss if you want: Charlie Gard, 10 months old.
Briefly, little Charlie Gard was born in the UK with a genetic disease for which there reaaly is no hope of survival. However his parents do not want to give up on their 10 month old child just yet. As there is a possible treatment in the US, however remote, his parents have raised over two million dollars to bring him to the US. But unfortunately, not only will the UK health system not release this baby to his parents, the matter was taken up the EU. Taking the case to the EU, the unelected ruling body that has the ultimate say over life and death, ruled late last week that the parents have no right to their child and the child must be euthanized for what reason only God knows.
I have written before about this slippery slope of government-mandated euthanasia, but this is the most disturbing of late. The parents have been told by the highest court in Europe that their baby MUST die even to the point that they are not even allowed to hold their own baby boy in their arms for his last breath. All the parents want is to at least have the chance at their own expense to give their tiny precious chile the opportunity to have his short life have some value, even if that means giving his life so that humanity can be just one tiny step closer to being able to cure some other child. Not one dime would be spent by the EU or with public funds.
And even Pope Francis, the head of the all Christianity, sided at first with the UK and the EU with a statement that went something like “we must also accept the limits of medicine and […..] avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family."
Interestingly days later the Vatican shifted after this from President Trump:
The Vatican sponsored hospital requested that little Charlie Gard be released to their care at the behest of Gard's parents. Still no word whether the UK hospital or the EU will relent.
But seriously, is this really the direction we want to head with humanity?
Comments are welcomed...
This is a serious quote for poor Emily Ratajkowski, actress, model, frankly I don't care...:
‘Oh, she’s too sexy,’” she told the magazine. “It’s like an anti-woman thing, that people don’t want to work with me because my boobs are too big What's wrong with boobs?LINK
Here's the deal. If you want to be taken seriously and not viewed as simply a set of big boobs and a sex object, don't keep taking your top off and displaying them! It's that simple. That is just stupid. But if you want to do that, don't claim sexism, misogyny or any other -ism, or "waaah, people don't like me 'cause I too pretty and have big boobs!"...seriously. Ancient Greek women understood this thousands of years ago. If you want to control men, withhold the one thing they really value...naked women. ["Lysistrata" written in 411 BCE by Aristophanes...a man]
Now, all the men reading this, skip this next part...it's in brackets and italicized, so it's you probably anyway. I have put a magic woman force field around it that we developed in our super-secret meetings called "Ladies Rooms" in restaurants and other public place around the globe, so you can't anyway (why do you think we go in pairs?):
[FOR WOMEN ONLY/MEN NOT ALLOWED TO READ THIS PART: Just between us girls, men are simple. They LIKE seeing naked women 'cause well, men are simple. It is just biology and hardwired in their little reptilian brains. You are stupid if you think otherwise. If you want to be known for something other than your naked body, keep your naked body covered! Ironically, men will notice other things about you that they might like just as much if you do. If you want to be treated as equals, keep your clothes on and think with with our brains. Signed, Your Grandmother]
Now that we have settled that, on to something really serious...involuntary euthanasia.
Just read this and we can discuss if you want: Charlie Gard, 10 months old.
Briefly, little Charlie Gard was born in the UK with a genetic disease for which there reaaly is no hope of survival. However his parents do not want to give up on their 10 month old child just yet. As there is a possible treatment in the US, however remote, his parents have raised over two million dollars to bring him to the US. But unfortunately, not only will the UK health system not release this baby to his parents, the matter was taken up the EU. Taking the case to the EU, the unelected ruling body that has the ultimate say over life and death, ruled late last week that the parents have no right to their child and the child must be euthanized for what reason only God knows.
I have written before about this slippery slope of government-mandated euthanasia, but this is the most disturbing of late. The parents have been told by the highest court in Europe that their baby MUST die even to the point that they are not even allowed to hold their own baby boy in their arms for his last breath. All the parents want is to at least have the chance at their own expense to give their tiny precious chile the opportunity to have his short life have some value, even if that means giving his life so that humanity can be just one tiny step closer to being able to cure some other child. Not one dime would be spent by the EU or with public funds.
And even Pope Francis, the head of the all Christianity, sided at first with the UK and the EU with a statement that went something like “we must also accept the limits of medicine and […..] avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results or excessively burdensome to the patient or the family."
Interestingly days later the Vatican shifted after this from President Trump:
If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 3, 2017
The Vatican sponsored hospital requested that little Charlie Gard be released to their care at the behest of Gard's parents. Still no word whether the UK hospital or the EU will relent.
But seriously, is this really the direction we want to head with humanity?
Comments are welcomed...
19 comments:
1) All the European Court of Human Rights did was defer to England's courts when Charlie's parents sought its intervention. So its not Europe imposing anything upon England.
The parents have (quite understandably) sought to make the issue a global one because local courts all sided with the Charlie's doctors and other medical experts over his parents.
Nobody with authority really sided with them (not even the Vatican's medical experts) up until the Pope and Trump.
2) There is no global entity which binds America, so what England decides doesn't really impact us (and vice versa). For example, England started off restrictive on gun ownership and has cracked down, America is pretty liberal about gun ownership and is getting more liberal.
3) I think Gard ought to be given to his parents though I can see where the hospital and the courts are coming from. For them the primary consideration is not the feelings of his parents, but Charlie's welfare and Charlie is severely brain damaged, blind, deaf, suffering from worsening seizures and incapable of moving, breathing or swallowing (the hospital has managed to keep him alive longer than anyone else with his condition).
Its a subjective call whether death is better than life in such circumstances so its makes little sense to defer to 'experts'. Its not truly known how much or even if Charlie is suffering (though in my experience as an epileptic seizures are painful). The decision ought to be the parents' to make.
As tech improves this is going to be a conundrum we face more and more often.
The Charlie Gard story really enrages me too much to comment rationally. If the parents have raised the money themselves for the travel and treatment, to sit there and say "no." It's just too much.
As far as the model goes, she just doesn't know how to play her cards.Her boobs aren't even that big, for Pete's sake. They're just exposed. Dolly Parton and Pam Anderson never engaged in any of this existential angst. They smiled and teased all the way to the bank. Pam was from a different era so she was more generous about sharing her wares, posing in Playboy 13 times while Dolly was more like a fan dancer. Knowing that her medium was country music and that in her era a bif portion of that base leaned religious she never actually pulled out the prizewinners. But she smiled and always was kind enough to let a little(little here is a relative term) cleavage slip. And they both smiled all the way to the bank. Whatshername here just doesnt know how to use her assets.
GypsyTyger
That young model strikes me as an airhead...her boobs had a bit part in a pretty good movie and now she thinks people care what she says....not really...
Euthanasia is indeed a slippery slope and getting worse all the time....my wife and I almost went broke trying to keep our oldest son alive after a brain tumor...but he made it, he's 33, has 3 kids and really good wife and a really good job...If we had listened to the local docs he wouldn't be here today.
AS far as His Holiness goes, I think often his handlers put out statements that he didn't clear and he has to go back and rework them....
A) I just get tired of women who use their bodies as their only talent and then cry "SEXIST PIGS" when people look at them as only a body.
B) My issue with Charlie Gard is that no government body should have any dominion over these decision. It is for the parents to decide with this caveat - if the parents are unfit or a real harm to their child (Munchhausen by proxy) And the fact that the hospital refuses to release the child because they have decided w/the help of the courts to end this child life even though his parents to seek treatment at their own cost is frightening. Sometimes there is just no hope, but that is not the job of government to decide. It is a matter of conscience meeting science. Otherwise we slip closer and closer to "Logan's Run" where everyone 30 and over dies...
Critch - Yes, I agree that the Pope is often mistranslated. ANd this time was probably no exception.
Charlie Gard's illness overshadows what is really the most appalling aspect of the situation. The UK government has effectively taken guardianship of the child on no grounds other than that he is sick. Another word might be kidnapping.
As for the ECHR's involvement, their refusal comes with the weight of an international court. It's dad telling you to listen to your uncle.
If I had to guess, the reason people don't want to work with Emily Ratatouille-ski probably has more to do with the proportionality between her bewbs and her personality.
I think the reason people don't want to work with Emily Ratajkowski is that: (1) she's actually not that attractive, (2) she's only famous for showing her breasts in a music video, (3) she hasn't stopped taking off her clothes since.
So basically, the only talent she has is showing her breasts and being over-exposed. Not good.
The whole anti-woman thing is BS. She is the female version of the "Hot Felon."
P.S. Sorry, I read the part I shouldn't. And yeah.., men are simple. It's true.
Oh and one more thing. Whining that everyone hates them is the new black for models. They think it endears them to the public so we are less inclined to dislike the opulence and elitism with which they surround themselves.
On Emily R (not even going to fight my phone on this one) there's not much I can add that you, GypsyTyger, Tryanmax, and Andrew haven't already said, Bev. I will note that claiming to be feminists and getting angry with people for viewing them as sex objects isn't unusual for even small time models. It's always struck me as disingenuous. If you ask me if you're going to trade on sex appeal you might as well own it and be ready to handle negativity with wit and charm. Based on what I've seen of her Emily doesn't seem to be as gifted on the mental and personality fronts as she is physically.
The Charlie Gard issue is definitely disturbing... If they have the money there really isn't any reason not to let them try. Kidnapping isn't really a stretch there. And yet I still see people defending the government here... It's sad all around.
- Daniel
Daniel, If you ask me if you're going to trade on sex appeal you might as well own it and be ready to handle negativity with wit and charm.
There's something each of these women has in common. They used their looks to earn their fame and their fortune. They are actresses and models who got their jobs in sexy roles where their body was what mattered.
Now that they are older, they whine about how unfair it is that women are judges on their looks. Well, first, it's not true. It's true in their profession, but women are generally judged on competence in other fields... can you run a company, can you invent a new compound, are you a good professor. Secondly, these whiners benefited from it to the exclusion of less attractive women when they first got their fame, so I have no sympathy for them now.
Christine Brinkley whined today, "Older women don't just disappear -- they are relevant." Yeah, well, not you sweet cheeks. You were relevant as a young, sexy model. Now that you no longer look good in the swimsuit, no one cares who you are.
Compare that with a female scientist, who absolutely remains as "relevant" (read: respected) as ever because she's someone who earned respect for her achievements, not her looks. Or a corporate CEO who will remain "relevant" well into her 70s and 80s.
This is whinerism from people who found the same thing happening to them that they did to others before them. Wahhh.
Speaking of irrelevant, George Clooney is moving his family back to California because his estate in the UK isn't safe enough....damn that's funny...
Wait, I thought Clooney lived in Italy? Shocking that he's moving to CA. I thought for sure it would be someplace safer like Iran with that treaty and all.
Notfernuttin', Andrew, but judging from Ms. Brinkley's photo spread earlier this year with her daughters, she still looks damn fine in a swimsuit.
Sorry, EP. That was hyperbole. You are correct. She does still looks damn fine. But that still doesn't make me want to hear what she thinks.
True dat. Just making sure you were aware of her all-time hubba-hubba status.
The hospital has reversed itself and is going to give the baby back to its parents, who will be free to seek treatment elsewhere.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/07/london_hospital_decides_against_being_that_killer_hospital.html
In the mother of all face-saving, the London hospital that had originally planned to kill off baby Charlie Gard, 'for his own good,' has seen the light and decided not to pull the plug. They will even allow this baby, with his very rare genetic condition, known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, to be treated with an experimental therapy offered freely from the United States.
“Two international hospitals and their researchers have communicated to us as late as the last 24 hours that they have fresh evidence about their proposed experimental treatment,” the hospital said in the statement. “And we believe, in common with Charlie’s parents, it is right to explore this evidence.”
Strikimg a blow against forced euthanasia!! Two NYC hospitals were working on emergency FDA approval for their experimental treatment too. Probabl u won't help little Charlie Gard, but th is is just one step closer to medical breakthrough in genetic disorders.
Post a Comment