Military veterans are among those who have expressed outrage at the on-going abuse of the famous monument in Green Park, directly opposite Buckingham Palace.
Unveiled by the Queen in 1994, it is surrounded by signs reading ‘As a mark of respect, please refrain from climbing this memorial’.
Despite this, visitors to the park now think nothing of walking up and down the sloping granite sculpture, which has water flowing across it, and using it to cool their feet, sunbathe, and play games on.
At the weekend, grown men in bare feet or trainers could be seen clambering on top of it, while encouraging children to use it as a slide during the hot summer weather.
(Second post in a row touching on environmentalism, unusual for me… Anyway…)
The Ontario government has some High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, some of which have been around for a few years; others of which were just added this year. Ostensibly, the purpose is to encourage carpooling, and thus cut down on vehicular emissions, etc. etc. Fine. But our premier plans to soon allow single-occupant vehicles to, for a fee, drive in the same lanes, too.
Seems not conducive to the original goal of giving people an incentive to carpool, if their exclusive lane becomes full of other vehicles that are not carpooling, even though they have to pay for the privilege. In fact, it seems downright counter-productive.
Now, obviously, it’s just a cash-grab by the government, and a rather crass and blatant one at that.
But it struck me: if environmentalism is a religion, then fees for allowing solo drivers to drive in carpool lanes, like selling ‘carbon credits‘, are the environmentalist faith’s equivalent of indulgences. Which still means they’re just crass cash grabs, of course; ones that try to pay lip service to the ostensible goals of the Cathedral, but which can clearly be seen (by those with eyes to see) for the opportunistic money grabs that they are.
Campus feminists at the University of Queensland in Australia are launching a civil war against other college social justice warriors. What’s their beef? Signs that urge students to take the stairs instead of the elevator.
But campus feminists say they promote the idea that thin is better than fat, and guilt students into making choices that might be healthy for their bodies but not for their psyches. Taking to her blog, one UQ campus feminist wailed, “Not only are these new signs annoyingly patronizing to everyone reading them, but they’re ableist and fat-shaming.”
Apparently, the signs make people who can’t make it up a flight of stairs rue their lot in life — as their disabilities or life choices make them less able to save the planet. The signs, she says, make it clear that the truly environmentally friendly view taking the elevator as a “luxury” and not a need, which discriminates against those who cannot climb stairs.
I love internecine prog wars. Moar, please!
By the way, a few years back, some then-regulars at this blog from Australia used to boast that feminism hadn’t made the kind of inroads into Australia that it had in elsewhere, and seemed to think that they were immune.
Well, incidences like this show how feminism is spreading there too; they aren’t immune, alas.
Although you might think that there are no reasons for boys underperforming in school and work, a little research shows that this is not the case.
The first reason boys are struggling is because of no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce allows either person in the marriage to end the marriage for any reason or for no reason at all. It was passed because radical feminists and trial lawyers pushed for it. Each special interest group stands to benefit from it in different ways. Feminists oppose the complementary nature of marriage, and trial lawyers just want to drain as much money as they can out of disintegrating families.
70% of divorces are initiated by women, and this is because women tend to emphasize their own subjective feelings of happiness over the objective commitment they make at the wedding. Women today are influenced by feminism to care more about their happiness than they do…
View original post 1,395 more words
Something I have thought about from time to time: why don’t more churches target the wealthy, as a group?
Sure, we have missionaries and ‘mission trips’ to Third World countries; there are a number of churches operating inner-city missions and soup kitchens, etc., minstering to the homeless, the hungry, the poor, alcoholics and drug addicts and whores in the streets, etc. There are ethnic outreach ministries, targeting ethnic minorities in big cities with services in their own language (along with ESL lessons, citizenship classes, and the like). There are prison ministries and chaplaincies, sharing Christ’s message of hope with those in prison. There are chaplaincies in the armed forces, to police and firefighters, etc., ministering to those who put their lives on the line for the rest of us. There are youth ministries; seniors’ ministries; couples’ ministries, men’s ministries, women’s ministries, etc.
But why not a ministry to the well-off?
I’m not sure exactly how we such a thing might be accomplished, though I can think of how NOT to do it: don’t do it when you’re supposed to be doing something else. If any of you have seen the 2000 movie ‘The Big Kahuna’ (and if you haven’t, you should; a great drama that’s akin to a stage play, mostly focused on the interactions between three men in a hospitality suite in a hotel; Kevin Spacey is great as always), you may recall the young evangelical new employee who proselytizes the boss of a company whose business the three men are courting for their own company, rather than trying to sell him on their product – the reason they were there, in a hotel far from home. Not wise.
But his discussing matters eternal with ‘The Big Kahuna’ at a cocktail party did make me think: why not such a setting? If people will go into the inner city and prepare and serve meals at soup kitchens (I did so with a church group at the church I attended in the Albany, New York area when I lived there for a year), why not hold a cocktail party at a lounge somewhere, targeting the type of people who would go for such a thing? (This would of course only work for the kinds of churches that are comfortable with alcoholic beverages, whether personally partaking or simply being comfortable around others doing so.) Or a dinner cruise aboard a yacht, or a formal dress ball, whatever?
I know; I just posted a rant about glorified vacations in the form of ostensible ‘mission trips’, and I’d hate to see the same thing happen with such a ministry to the rich – or for non-rich people to be ‘posers’, dressing up and acting like something they aren’t, just for kicks, or to try to make business contacts to get ahead (the reverse of what the evangelical character in ‘The Big Kahuna’ did), etc. Which is why I’d prefer rich Christians themselves, those who already live the lifestyles of the well-heeled, who can afford to put on such events, who own such yachts, etc., to volunteer to organize such things themselves, for their non-believing counterparts, rather than the middle-class and poorer, who can’t afford to live that way often and for whom such things aren’t normal, everyday kinds of events.
What do you say, rich brethren and sisters?
What have you got to lose, other than perhaps of course your worldly respectability.😉
Church ‘mission trips’ are just church-funded vacations-in-disguise for teenagers / young adults.
We should do away with them.