Melissa-Harris Perry makes an egregiously stupid statement that “children belong to communities.”

Sarah Palin responds with an equally stupid statement:

Apparently MSNBC doesn’t think your children belong to you. Unflippingbelievable. youtu.be/Oa9temz_Cxw
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) April 7, 2013

Conclusion: neither the progressives nor the conservatives are prepared to see children as human beings who don’t belong to anybody other than themselves. For both groups, children are things. Or, at best, house pets.

I’m very sad that Margaret Thatcher died. Whatever you think of her politics, she offered a very positive contrast with all of these Dianas and Kates whose greatest achievement is marrying somebody people consider important. Thatcher didn’t invest her energies into fostering idiotic scandals around her persona, attracting paparazzi, choosing expensive outfits, or distracting the public with their soap-operish drama.

If you dislike Thatcher for being Conservative, then remember that she was at least very honest about that. In the meanwhile, all these fake scandals of Kates, Fergies and Dianas are serving the purpose of distracting people from what is going on politically and zombifying them with stupid scandals that are created out of nothing (Kate’s recent pregnancy-related scandal made me positively despise her. I understand that being scandalous is what she gets paid to do but still, how nasty.)

Thatcher showed the world that British women are not all trivial, silly, and interested in nothing but their looks. She achieved things, made things work. We can disagree with those things but the value of a woman in a fiercely sexist society traveling the road of achievement and not the road of playing into the worst stereotypes about women is very high.

I’m seriously stupid, people. For some bizarre reason, I decided to use perfume. What I forgot is that pregnancy has made me ultra-sensitive to smells. So now it feels like the universe reeks of this disgusting perfume.

I’m really suffering right now.

I don’t get all these debates on whether the global warming is man-made or not. Who cares? We all know there is global warming. We all know it is already resulting in horrible things. Doesn’t it make sense to do something about it irrespective of what or who caused it?

Let’s say global warming is in no way influenced by human activity and is a result of periodic changes in the planet’s temperature that happen for reasons beyond our control. The last major one took place around 1,000 AD, if I remember correctly (I’m not an expert, so I might be wrong on the dates.) It doesn’t matter for the moment if you agree with this. For the sake of the argument, let’s assume this is the truth***.

Doesn’t it make sense to do something to counteract the detrimental consequences of this non-human global warming? The glaciers are thawing, that’s an incontrovertible fact of objective reality. The planet’s temperature is rising. That is also an incontrovertible fact of objective reality. All we can control is our human influence on the planet’s temperature. So why wouldn’t we control it if it could prevent further negative things? Isn’t the attitude of “We didn’t cause the problem so we will do nothing about it even if we have to die in the process” completely childish?

Even if we can all agree that the global warming is nothing but horrible, rotten luck we have encountered for absolutely no reason whatsoever, how is that a reason to do nothing to reverse its consequences? If your house gets infected with termites, will you pay for an exterminator, or will you sit there, repeating like a parrot, “I didn’t cause this, so I won’t lift a finger to address the problem” as the house crumbles down around you?

*** I don’t think it’s the truth. I’m just making an argument.