![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsThey're on to us.
No, really. Twenty years ago, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, I wrote a short article that described all sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy as "technological limitations." That generated a bit of controversy, but I think it's one of those things that is self-evident. Shortened, brutal lives and a vast, underproductive population crippled by wasting diseases were also "technological limitations," and we've overcome some of them with effective innovations. Vaccination, nutrition, public hygiene, advanced medicine, have all advanced the human condition. All of these have benefited from other, foundational technologies in transportation, logistics, communication, and the like. I wrote, approvingly (and still believe, approvingly) that the only thing that ought to be at stake when two people come together in intimacy is intimacy: the communition of their hearts and bodies. Fear of something that neither person actually wants in the bedroom ought not to be part of the equation.
This morning, in the (Sun Myung Moon owned) Washington Times, Jeffrey Kuhner writes:
See, because they're on to us. Just like the Grand Mof Tarkin said of the Death Star, Jeffery Kuhner believes that fear will keep the peasants in line. Fear of disease and unwanted pregnancy are good things that somehow create healthy families and children.
Kuhner goes off the rails by claiming a "Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Saul Alinsky and George Soros" "Axis-of-Evil" progression that culminates in Obama being "a Leninist." But that's just name-calling.
The title of this post came from Peter LaBarbera's description of anyone who advances a vision of a humanity free to consent as "part of the sexual anarchist lobby." Neither LaBarbera nor Kuhner can imagine a world without an externalities-based fear. Just like America must always have some enemy in which to be deathly, existentially terrified, so too must lovers have some immanent, external tragedy against which they must create bulwarks or their love will be doomed.
In reality, Kuhner's rant and LaBarbera's schoolyard taunt are very much like David Frum's infamous Dark Satanic Mill Capitalism essay, where he wrote that fear of impoverishment and ruin are good things that keep the peasants in line, unwilling to upset the working order of the corporatist oligarchy.
And like Frum, Kuhner just has this... feeling... that kids are getting away with too much these days and, dammit, something not's right. Humanity shouldn't have it so easy. It's nice and all that technology allowed the peasants to be productive for sixty years instead of just twenty, but they're getting a little uppity with all that good food and education, ain't they? Life shouldn't be getting better for the majority of us. We should be afraid. If we're not afraid, what place is there for the succor of God? If, no really, humanity has no need for the succor of God, then Mr. Khuner's entire life, and his dedication to a religious belief, have been for naught.
No, really. Twenty years ago, at the height of the AIDS epidemic, I wrote a short article that described all sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy as "technological limitations." That generated a bit of controversy, but I think it's one of those things that is self-evident. Shortened, brutal lives and a vast, underproductive population crippled by wasting diseases were also "technological limitations," and we've overcome some of them with effective innovations. Vaccination, nutrition, public hygiene, advanced medicine, have all advanced the human condition. All of these have benefited from other, foundational technologies in transportation, logistics, communication, and the like. I wrote, approvingly (and still believe, approvingly) that the only thing that ought to be at stake when two people come together in intimacy is intimacy: the communition of their hearts and bodies. Fear of something that neither person actually wants in the bedroom ought not to be part of the equation.
This morning, in the (Sun Myung Moon owned) Washington Times, Jeffrey Kuhner writes:
President Obama is on the verge of achieving his liberal revolution. His goal is to destroy our Judeo-Christian culture. ...Really, you should read the rest, but that's a precis' of Kuhner's attitudes.
Its [Liberalism's] aim is to erect a utopian socialist state - one built upon the rubble of Judeo-Christian civilization. In short, liberals want to create a world without God and sexual permissiveness is their battering ram. Promoting widespread contraception is essential to forging a pagan society based on consequence-free sex.
The proposal is profoundly immoral. Contraception violates the natural moral order. It entrenches the hedonistic ethic that sex is about recreation and individual gratification. ... Mr. Obama is rapidly advancing the culture of death.
See, because they're on to us. Just like the Grand Mof Tarkin said of the Death Star, Jeffery Kuhner believes that fear will keep the peasants in line. Fear of disease and unwanted pregnancy are good things that somehow create healthy families and children.
Kuhner goes off the rails by claiming a "Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Saul Alinsky and George Soros" "Axis-of-Evil" progression that culminates in Obama being "a Leninist." But that's just name-calling.
The title of this post came from Peter LaBarbera's description of anyone who advances a vision of a humanity free to consent as "part of the sexual anarchist lobby." Neither LaBarbera nor Kuhner can imagine a world without an externalities-based fear. Just like America must always have some enemy in which to be deathly, existentially terrified, so too must lovers have some immanent, external tragedy against which they must create bulwarks or their love will be doomed.
In reality, Kuhner's rant and LaBarbera's schoolyard taunt are very much like David Frum's infamous Dark Satanic Mill Capitalism essay, where he wrote that fear of impoverishment and ruin are good things that keep the peasants in line, unwilling to upset the working order of the corporatist oligarchy.
And like Frum, Kuhner just has this... feeling... that kids are getting away with too much these days and, dammit, something not's right. Humanity shouldn't have it so easy. It's nice and all that technology allowed the peasants to be productive for sixty years instead of just twenty, but they're getting a little uppity with all that good food and education, ain't they? Life shouldn't be getting better for the majority of us. We should be afraid. If we're not afraid, what place is there for the succor of God? If, no really, humanity has no need for the succor of God, then Mr. Khuner's entire life, and his dedication to a religious belief, have been for naught.
Re: Explaining homeland security:
Date: 2011-09-29 02:57 am (UTC)