The Sacred Sacraments of Contemporary Feminism

Though owners of the "Common Consent" blog no longer deign to permit me to comment on their inane observations, I still read with some interest, and even fascination from time to time.

I should add that at one time I took the trouble to bypass the security system at "Common Consent", but once I had access again, I found that I had little to say that would have made any impression in that forum.  They obviously think very highly of themselves.

This week there was an interesting post about someone's divorce experience.  The story itself was a rather boring tedious repetition of all the agonized dramatic breast-beating tearful pathetic melodrama that is commonly staged in nearly every divorce.  My interest was drawn by what was NOT mentioned.  In considering all the implications of divorce, the post and comments were careful not to mention one thing.

Before the beginning of a certain epoch, the divorce rate per marriage was relatively low.  The rate began to go up in the '60s, roughly doubled in the '70s, and peaked in the '80s.

The falling-off of the rate since then probably relates to the contemporary social trend to abjure marriage altogether, more than any tendency toward avoiding divorce.  In social trends, marriage decline from that watershed point led to corresponding gradual decline in every related statistic.  Judging by the popular media coverage, the only people still wanting to get married are Hollywood celebrities and homosexuals.  Both groups seem predisposed to casual divorces and other associated trends.

In fact the divorce trend seems to fit rather nicely with several other social trends.  No coincidence that trends in marriage rates, divorce rates, birth rates, and abortion rates correspond so closely.

My impression is that divorce is one of the sacred sacraments of feminism.  The application of this ubiquitous and vociferous world-view began to be popularized at the end of the '60s, and continues through the present. The popularity of the feminist social trend is reflected in the sudden increase of these rates.  It reflects a destructive and pernicious philosophy that challenges the foundations of heathy human society.

The toll of every feminist "victory" brings the world one step closer to the extinction of the human race.

Vice President Cheney to speak at BYU

Media sources have announced that Dick Cheney will deliver a public address at the BYU Commencement ceremonies in April 2007. Here's a link to a Deseret News article.

Just below the radar is a muttering growl of outrage. Too many people personally project hatred and loathing for President George W. Bush. Cheney gets the benefit of some of the overflow that spills past the edges.

To me, this ferocious mounting antipathy that focuses on Bush and spills over to Cheney is beyond all reason. I cannot fathom why anyone would object to Cheney's speaking engagements. From my experience, Cheney is an accomplished public speaker. The speaking circuit is a common enough occupation for Vice Presidents, has-been and otherwise, honored or infamous.

As to the spewing of pejoratives and unsubstantiated accusations, let those who embrace such vile practices validate their claims in the court of justice. You need to progress somewhere beyond your mock impeachment proceedings and actually do something more than just slander and threaten in hysterical public demonstrations. Otherwise it is just more of the endless unsubstantiated "Bush lied" mantra that amounts to a public propaganda campaign.

Personally, I find far less reason to believe these than Bush and company. Sad to say that the general level of credibility is so compromised by the current tone of public discussion. The only sure premise is that when everyone lies, there is no source of public information that can be trusted.

In fine illustration of this point, a current Deseret News article quotes comments from BYU political science professor Darren Hawkins.

Hawkins believes Cheney has changed in the past four years from a moderate pragmatist to an extremist driven by the Iraq war and has appeared willing to do anything to create his version of a secure country.

Ironically, it is people like Hawkins that are the pivot of change. These fickle people started out as embracing the concept of opposing the sources of global terrorism, and have gradually transformed into caricatures of screaming anti-war protesters of the 60's.

Hawkins goes on to say of Cheney,

"He may be the most unpopular vice president in history and he may be the most unpopular person in America right now, so, yes, where else could he go?" Hawkins said. "It doesn't surprise me the White House called back and wondered if BYU would take him. I seriously doubt he'd be welcome at a lot of other universities."

What does popularity have to do with it? Are we now supposed to begin censoring speakers with unpopular causes?