Something on my Mind: What's that Again? (1)

Have you ever picked up on the mixed messages we get in the media? In other words, you may encounter a statement here, meaning one thing, but somewhere else, it means something else. You see it in radio, television, or print; they all seem to be the same.

A word picture may help here. Let's take the print medium as an example: On Page 1, a statement will say one thing, but on Page 10 the same statement will mean something else—not merely different, but actually the opposite. It may be intentional or an oversight, I'm not sure.

Here are a few samples:

1. "It's my body," is one of the best ones. This is a common mantra in the abortion narrative, although it ignores every other key factor. A woman's body is a woman's body, no question about that, but it's a little more complicated than that.

What about the body within in her body (ie., the human life of her baby). What about his/her body? Is there any consideration there?

But the abortion argument aside, why can't we use that argument when we're discussing vaccinations? If we hold to the "it's my body" position, why doesn't that apply to whether we choose to be vaccinated or not? If there are body rights for some things, shouldn't we have body rights in everything? (The answer is Yes, by the way.)

2. Another one is "tolerance," and its cousin, "diversity." Tolerance and diversity are wonderful attributes (and I actually mean it), so long as they are genuine diversity and tolerance—which they're not. Both have a short shelf life.

In other words, tolerance and diversity seem to be embraced only up to certain point, and as soon as there is a truly "diverse" viewpoint, that form of tolerance gets thrown out the window. It then morphs into intolerance, which becomes bigotry, exposing its real self.

It's a clash of worldviews, to be sure, but if we espouse tolerance and diversity, let's practice them. Any selective version is a sham.

3. Free speech" clearly fits into this conversation. Apart from obvious hate and heckling, along with vulgarity or vitriol, which are wrong, do we really have free speech? Can we write or speak with measured civility, or are there a myriad strings attached? We need to define the "free" part of free speech.

Am I free to slander the likes of Michael Moore, David Suzuki, Justin Trudeau, and others of their ilk? (Maybe even commenting like is considered wrong.) The answer is "No," of course. (I never have and never will, by the way.) But it works both ways.

Mindless snowflakes can diss President Trump, the late Billy Graham, Jordan Peterson, et al, and get away with it. That strikes me as a double standard of the highest order.

4. Here's another zinger of the inconsistent mindset: "evolution." We're taught that we came from nothing, are composite, meaningless molecules and heading nowhere fast. If that's the case, there's nothing to plan for, hope for, or work for. There are massive issues with that view.

But then in the next breath we read or hear how we are to build up our self-esteem. So now we're a "nothing" that needs to be a "something"? Go figure. There is no need for self-esteem, if we have no purpose or worth.

We are taught, on one hand, that we came came from primordial soup, but on the other hand, we are taught how to boost our self-worth. Strange.

To be continued.