When will the Supreme Court rule on whether showing pictures
of infants constitutes free speech? And when will they rule that “sounds like a
plan,” “we’re on the same page,” don’t fall under Oliver Wendell Holmes ruling
in Schenck about “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic?" “Don’t litter, “ “No
Expectorating.” Well, “thank you for sharing, but keep ‘em to yourself.” They're all nauseatingly the same and a reminder that birth and
death however joyous and mysterious have something in common with ingestion and
regurgitation. What comes in must come out and little agglomerations of cells
all neatly spiked with DNA are the result in many cases of sexual congress.
What’s the big deal? What’s worse is that the baby picture producers are spiking
your computer with malware which allows other baby photo makers to ply you with
mountains of monotonous looking cherubs who could turn into
tomorrow’s Hitlers or Gaddafis. And what about original sin? The next time you hear some epigone ranting
at the UN remember that he was once an adorable little child whose parents and
grandparents probably carried pictures of him in their wallets. We shall bury
you with baby pictures is what a whole new generation of baby boomer
grandparents are saying. Not yet, nyet!
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.