I would suggest that the metastory on the South Fulton fire is that our great nation is taking a loooong step backwards in the name of the secular Friedmanist religion, whose motto is, "You're on your own, tough on you!"
Like its twin, the secular religion Marxism, Friedmanism promises an earthly paradise for all who follow its principles, a regrettably necessary fate for the losers who cannot live up to the New Soviet/Miltonfriedmanish Ideal, and an unshakeable conviction in the rightness of the Cause ... for any apparent "failures" in communities who employ their principles are easily explained as the fault of the flawed humans who implemented it poorly.
In this particular case, we may ask why the county doesn't have a public fire service? They had a plan to do so which, obviously, was not implemented. Why? I have not investigated deeply but I'd bet cash money that the county's people suffer from the same economic problems as nearly everywhere else: the export of jobs to low-wage countries.
As a nation, we can't go on like this and maintain a semblance of decency.
Friday, October 08, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
The attention-seeking Phelps family seeks to overturn this principle in the case of Snyder v. Phelps. They assert their right to intrude upon private funerals to promote their message; the Snyder family stands for normal, mentally healthy Americans in demanding that the Snyders have no such right.
The issues have been summarized as
How this will turn out in the courts is anyone's guess. There are, unfortunately, some rather foolish people defending the Phelps' on First Amendment grounds. But this should not be a close case; the protesters claim that their right to speech overrides the speech and religious rights of the Snyders, which is absurd.
- Whether the prohibition of awarding damages to public figures to compensate for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents, applies to a case involving two private persons regarding a private matter
- whether the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment trumps its freedom of religion and peaceful assembly;
- whether an individual attending a family member’s funeral constitutes a “captive audience” who is entitled to state protection from unwanted communication.